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

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.

Obama Can’t Hide In Hawaii: Even In The Farthest Stretches Of His Realm, The ObamaCare Debacle Haunts King Obama

Personal note to King Obama: Notre Dame business law professor Laura Hollis nailed it: you really aint a king, and I certainly am NOT one of your “subjects.”

I say knowing I say it in vain.  Malignant narcissist that you have been diagnosed to be by the leading psychologist authority on the subject of narcissism, no one will ever be able to tell you ANYTHING that doesn’t suit your incredibly vain ego, President Selfie.

It also, tragically, doesn’t matter how much of a costly, colossal and catastrophic failure your signature legislative accomplishment a.k.a. ObamaCare truly is, in your arrogance and in your self-centered wickedness you will NEVER allow it to be overturned until you’re either out of office or rightly impeached.

But you can go to the farthest reaches of your realm, Hussein, and you STILL can’t run from your “signature legislative debacle,” can you???

Obama fled to Hawaii, where (even according to the liberally-biased New York Slimes:

The executive director of Hawaii’s state health care exchange announced her resignation on Friday amid delays in getting the insurance marketplace off the ground.

The director, Coral Andrews, who has led Hawaii Health Connector for two years as the state worked to build the exchange, will step down on Dec. 6. Tom Matsuda, the Affordable Care Act’s implementation manager in the governor’s office, will take over as interim director. […]

From its outset, Hawaii’s exchange has faced many of the same problems that have plagued the federal health care website and other state exchanges around the country.

The (very slightly less) liberally-biased AP said slightly more:

HONOLULU (AP) — The director of Hawaii’s health insurance marketplace under President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul has resigned after delays in getting the exchange running and low signups in the first month. […]

The exchange had a two-week delay in starting open enrollment, then signed up only 257 people in its first month of allowing people to buy coverage.

The delay led to complaints from consumers, including some turning directly to health insurance companies to buy plans. Those who bought plans directly from insurance companies are unable to qualify for tax credits and other rebates.

Hawaii is the place where numerous healthcare industry leaders have actually been stepping forward and saying “we’re not going to have any health care.”

The pattern of debacle is going on even in many of the bluest states, such as Maryland and Washington.  Liberals point to California as a shining example of ObamaCare’s wonderfulness, but not so damn fast, you reality-denying idiots: not when the figures released by the executive director of the California Exchange (for ObamaCare) indicate that premiums are going to increase, on average, by between 64% to 146%.  Because if THAT’S “going well,” if THAT’S “succeeding,” then we can claim that as the Titanic plunged stern-first into the ocean and sank toward the bottom, it made really good time aaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllll the way down.

In California, more than ONE MILLION Americans have had their insurance policies CANCELLED because of ObamaCare.  THAT’S “going well”????  Seriously????

Similarly, liberals point to New York state and say, “See how well ObamaCare is working?  Praise messiah!  Praise him!  Worship him!  Adore him!”  But consider that:

A headline about the health care law driving down premiums, by this level of magnitude, is a rarity. But it shouldn’t be shocking: New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country.

Do you get this?  Your health premiums may actually go down, provided that you live in the state with the very highest premiums on planet earth.  But that’s a “success.”  Praise Obama!  Worship him!”

In the similar industry of auto insurance, the justification for some of the highest rates in America is that:

“the higher rates are justified by the high costs of doing business in New York.”

How about Oregon?  Surely things must be going well there.  I mean, after all, Obama gave Oregon more money to build a website than he gave to ANY other state with the exceptions of New York and California (notice how all the bucks somehow ended up in the blue states???).  But hold on a moment:

The Orgeon website STILL isn’t working, so if you want your ObamaCare fix, you have to fill out a 19 page form to get it.  It’s a shock that it isn’t working, because the same “pros” that built the federal ObamaCare site were brought in.  Nothing but the best for Hussein and his libturds, you know.  And yet in spite of all those millions of dollars to create a “success story” (you know how Democrats are blaming the red states that didn’t want ObamaCare for all the problems, I’m sure), the situation in Oregon is so fouled up that Oregonians are now getting robocalls advising them that if they think they’ve got health insurance, they probably DON’T.

There aint NOWHERE where ObamaCare doesn’t suck the life out of the universe.  Liberalism is by its nature a parasite that just sucks and sucks until the host is dead.

There is nowhere Obama can hide.  He can be the emperor strutting out in his tighty-whiteys, but he is still a very naked scrawny pencil-necked little weasel wherever he goes.

At this point the only possible way to save America from implosion is if the people rise up as one and, with pitchforks and torches if necessary, storm Castle Obamastein and drag the monster-in-chief out with their bare hands.

Secular Humanist Liberals Who Try To Hijack Christmas Are Like Klu Klux Klansmen Who’d Like To Hijack Martin Luther King Day

Let me just point out an obvious historical fact: Christmas is a federal holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Democrats – who despise God, despise the Bible, despise Judeo-Christianity, despise Western Civilization itself and whose favorite “art” is “Piss Christ” – most despise the nativity scene that depicts the birth of Jesus when they rain their hell on Christmas.

That said, Democrats hate Santa Claus, too.  Because Santa Claus was based on an actual historical white Christian male named Saint Nicholas, after all.  And truth is just something these people WILL NOT tolerate.

But they hate Jesus far more.  Because Jesus put it best when He pointed out, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first” — John 15:18.

What is it about allowing a nativity scene that forces people to bow down and pray against their wills?  I have no freaking clue.  Apparently Democrats believe more in the power of the Christmas spirit than conservative evangelical Christians do.

Demanding that other religions or other people be honored as much as Jesus is honored on Christmas is no different than demanding that we give equal honor to the equivalent day for the Soviet Union when we honor the day our Declaration of Independence (which is filled with references to God, fwiw) was adopted in America on Independence Day.  It’s like demanding that we give equal time to Nathan Bedford Forrest (the founder of the Ku Klux Klan) on Martin Luther King Day.  In other words, it is a frankly insane and evil thing to do.

So stop and think about the liberals who come unglued over a holiday that honors the birth of Christ.  Tell me precisely how they’re different from Ku Klux Klansmen (the Ku Klux Klan being the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, for the factual record) wanting to bring their agenda into a holiday that honors the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Take a look at the KKK’s history:

As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.^[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

It is a historical fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican who publicly campaigned for Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Democrats responded by whitewashing – literally white washing – history to turn truths into lies and lies into truths.  Such as that Democrats should get the credit for voting for the Civil Rights Act when history documents that Republicans deserve overwhelmingly MORE credit.

But what should one expect from the Party of lies and liars???  What should one expect from the Party of homosexual sodomy worship and baby murder???

The beast, the Antichrist of the end times who will be the ultimate big government bureaucrat and who will promise a liberal Utopia but instead create hell on earth, will be cheered by every Democrat.  Count on it.

I feel I need to point it out again: Christmas is a federal holiday honoring the birth of Jesus.  You don’t have to honor Him as the Son of God adding a human nature to His deity by being born of a virgin, as I do; you just have to recognize that the Man who had the greatest impact on all of human history was BORN.  Just like Martin Luther King day is a federal holiday that honors the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

If Democrat judges need to impose “Festivus” or whatever the hell else the demons in them itch to push to undermine Christmas, they should just as vigorously support the right of white power groups to impose their agenda on MLK day.  The fact that they don’t merely supports the thesis I have argued hundreds of times: that the quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject hypocrisy.

It is simply a FACT that our founding fathers were Christians and very much intended to forge a nation upon the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality:

If You Think Founding Fathers Didn’t Want This Country To Be A Christian One, Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It

Whose Country Do We Want: Our Founding Fathers’ Or Our Secular Contemporaries’?

It is simply a historical fact that of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 54 were confessed Christians and members of Christian churches. And 29 of them had seminary degrees and were ordained ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They didn’t throw their faith into the trash can and they didn’t seek to have their faith – a faith that influenced them to defy the mightiest nation in the history of the world up to that time to found a nation – being banned from influencing the government they had founded.  Only genuinely morally insane people would believe that.  Rather, our founding fathers sought to provide a climate friendly to religion and in fact FOUNDED upon religion as George Washington famously expressed it:

“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.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

The central project of America was to create a moral and religious citizenry:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Did our founding fathers intend to create a “theocracy”???  NO.  When the founding fathers used the term “religion” (as in the question, “What is your religion?”) they in fact understood “religion” to refer to a Christian sect.  There simply weren’t enough non-Christian religions in America, for one thing, while there were NUMEROUS Christian denominations.  And the founding fathers – who did NOT want a “Church of England” situation arising in America – were wise enough to realize that they had to prevent one denomination from being allowed to use government power to overshadow any or all of the others.  That was all they sought to do.  The did NOT seek to ban religion or even Christianity in a general sense from influencing the government.  Only a true fool believes otherwise.

Democrats are truly evil people who have sought to subvert and frankly to pervert the project of the founding fathers who gave us our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  That is why Democrats have sought to impose socialism that would make our founding fathers frankly puke; that is why they have sought to overturn the 2nd Amendment in a manner that makes our founding fathers spin in their graves; that is why Democrats have sought to create an all-powerful central government that is more of an enemy to America than the imperial England EVER was to the founding fathers; and that is frankly why Democrats have sought to impose godless Marxism which replaces “God” with “the State.”

The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine, demon-possessed evil in America.  It has ALWAYS been, since the day that Democrats wanted the “freedom” to own slaves:

The Democrat Party was the Party that waged a brutal Civil War to continue black slavery with a United States led by Republican President named Lincoln.  The Democrat Party was the Party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan as its terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

Again, the evidence that the founding fathers clearly and overwhelmingly intended for Christianity and for religion to be the dominant form of morality in America is so crystal clear that it is beyond unreal.

The Democrat Party’s war against Christ and Christianity has so many fronts no human mind can possibly keep track of all of them.

The attack on Christmas is merely one of them.

But I think it makes me roll my eyes more than any of the other demonic attacks by Democrats.  Because if honoring the birth of Jesus somehow imposes “religion” against non-Christians’ wills, then honoring the birth of Martin Luther King forces non-black people to become black people against their wills.  It is simply such a stupid and asinine allegation that all the barf bags in the world aren’t enough to contain the response of a rational thinking soul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Debate Over Homosexual Parents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Study Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences in Sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations of the Study

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

---

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

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

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

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

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son Of God (Part 4): The Trinity In The Old Testament

There are a lot of spiritually and scripturally ignorant people who view the doctrine of the Trinity as a problem.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a problem at all; rather, it is an OBVIOUS ANSWER to the “problem” of the biblical data which assure us that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Question: Does the Old Testament allow for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Answer: You betcha it does.
I. Uniqueness, Unity, and Diversity: a brief study on the nature of the God who would send the Messiah and give us the Bible.

A. God’s Uniqueness and Unity presented in the midst of a pagan world.

1. The fundamental point of OT theology is the uniqueness and unity of Israel’s God as opposed to the polytheism of Israel’s neighbors.

a. All the religions of the nations surrounding Israel were basically nature cults, designed to enlist the aid of the pantheon and ensure the fertility of the land.
b. Humans were basically created because the gods were lazy and needed someone to do the work so they could play and stay drunk.
c. In contrast, Duet 6:4 claims, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”  Yahweh alone is the true and living God.  He is unique and it is therefore humanity’s obligation to worship Him alone.  We also find that, unlike the pantheons (e.g. the Baal pantheon) God is not divided.  In Num 6:27, God’s “name” is singular in number (“put My name upon the people”).

2. But the above emphasis on the unity of God’s being seems to be supplemented by a kind of mulitiplicity suggesting distinct centers of consciousness, as we are about to see.
3.  And further, Israel knew that the “Lord is one,” but it also became aware of one called “Seed,” “Branch,” “Wisdom,” “Prophet,” and “King” (as well as [another?] one called “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit.”).

B. The diversity of the one true God revealed in the Pentateuch.

1. A study of “the Lord is one” (‘ehad /echad. Strong’s #259) in Deut 6:4.

a. “’Ehad” is closely identified with “yahad” (“to be united”) and “ro’sh (“first, head).” It stresses unity while also recognizing the potential for diversity within that oneness. A good translation for this sense would be “a compound unity/oneness.” The word “compound” is defined as being “composed of two or more parts, elements or ingredients.” Read Num 13:23 and Gen 1:5 for illustration.
b. Here are a FEW of the MANY times when ‘ehad/echad is used in this manner:

1) Gen. 1:5: The yom echad (first day) is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning as a compound unity.
2) Gen. 2:24: Adam and Eve became l-visar echad (one flesh). They were one, but two and they were two, but one.
3) Gen. 3:22: Adam and Eve became “one” (echad) with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became “one” with God.
4) Gen. 11:6: The people were one (echad). They were, thus, “one” and “many” at the same time.
5) Gen. 34:16, 22: The Shechemites wanted to become “one people” (l-`am echad) with the Jews.
6) Ex 24:3 describes all the people as speaking “with one voice.”
7) In Ex 26:6,11; 36:13 the NIV translates “‘ehad” as “a unit.” The tabernacle curtains were fastened together to form one unit.
7) II Chron. 30:12: God gave the people “one heart” (lev echad). Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were “one” in a compound or composite sense.
7) Ezra 2:64: The “congregation” (kol-haqahal) of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as “one” (k-echad). Similarly, in Jud 20:8 and 1 Sam 11:7 the word “’ehad” is used in the phrase “as one man” (all the people arose as one man).
8) Jer. 32:39: Under the New Covenant, God will give His people “one heart” (lev echad).

c. There ARE times where the word ‘ehad/echad is used as “one” in the sense affirmed by strict Unitarian monotheists (such as Deut 17:6 (“only one witness” as opposed to “two or three witnesses”) and Ex 9:6 (“but not one animal”). But all Christians need to demonstrate here is that there is a powerful sense of ‘ehad/echad as a compound oneness throughout the Bible. Thus the Trinity is in the door EVEN in the Shema of Deut 6:4, the monotheistic Jews’ most powerful claim of strict monotheism. It is simply intellectually dishonest not to recognize that fact. And NOTE that when we speak of human witnesses and animals, we are speaking of one AMONG MANY. We are merely speaking about one particular human or animal among many others. So this is hardly the strongest case for ‘ehad being used in a strict Unitarian sense.
d. By contrast, there IS another Hebrew word – “yachid” (Strong’s #3173) – which means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6 and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture. Unitarians should naturally expect to find that the word yachid applied to God in the Bible. On the other hand, Trinitarians would not expect to find yachid used of God because they believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead. So who is right? When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture NEVER applied yachid to God. They never described God as a solitary person. This is simply devastating to the Unitarian position of strict monotheism.
e. “The Lord is one” of Deut 6:4 is a powerful contrast with the polytheism that surrounded Israel. It is clear that God is one in some profound sense, and that, as one, He is unique and worship is to be accorded to Him alone. But it does NOT in any way rule out the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the contrary: it allows for it as much as “one team” allows for 11 or even 53 49er football players to be on the field.

2. A study of “In the beginning God created” (Elohim).

a. The 3rd word in the Hebrew Bible (‘In the beginning God’) conveys a clear sense of plurality in God.
b. “Im” (in “Elohim”) is a masculine plural suffix, which clearly allows – if not demands – for a plurality of persons.
c. This plural form (the singular is “’Eloah”) occurs ONLY in Hebrew and is not found in any other Semitic language (including Aramaic). THERE IS NO PLURAL FORM OF GOD IN ARAMAIC, ONLY IN HEBREW.  You seriously have to wonder why ONLY the Jews used the plural form if they were supposed to be strict Unitarian monotheists.
d. The singular form “Eloah” IS used in the Old Testament, but why is the plural form “Elohim” used FAR, FAR more???   Note that the singular form does NOT damage Trinitarian doctrine because Trinitarians AGREE that “God is ONE in His nature; we hold that God is ONE in Nature and THREE in Person.  The question here is why the plural form of God “Elohim” is used at ALL if God is the strict Unitarian entity of the radical strict monotheism of Islam and Judaism???
e. It is simply a fact that Israel, in distinction from all the nations, had a unique sense of plurality in the one true God whom they worshipped in addition to the fact that God is One.

3. A study of the use of plural pronouns and verbs.

a. Plural pronouns are used to describe the actions of God (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7).

– This phenomenon of plural pronouns points to a plurality of persons within the Godhead.
– Religious liberals who like to call this a “plural of majesty” fail to be properly disappointed by the fact that there is NO example of a “plural of majesty” in the Ancient Near East. (And no Hebrew king ever uses “we” or “us” to describe himself). The very earliest usage of such a plural of majesty is in 4th century AD Byzantine – some 800 years AFTER the OT was written.

b. The OT occasionally uses plural verbs when God is the subject and a singular form of the verb would be expected.

– wooden literal translation of Gen 35:7 is “because there the gods they had revealed themselves to him [Jacob].”
– Liberals don’t want to acknowledge the deity of Jesus Christ, and they therefore refuse to acknowledge any grounds for the doctrine of the Trinity in the OT. If the facts get in the way, so much the worse for the facts!

4. A study of the enigmatic figure called the angel of the Lord (Gen 16:7-14). The angel of the Lord is apparently distinguished from “Yahweh” (v. 11b) and then identified with Yahweh, El, and Elohim (v. 13).

– Note that in Gen 16:10 the Angel of the Lord says, “I will multiply your offspring.” Contrast that with appearances of angels who are NOT “the Angel of the Lord,” such as Gabriel in announcing to Mary.
– In Luke 1:28 Gabriel says, “The Lord is with you.” In Luke 1:30 Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive…” And when Mary asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Gabriel responded in Luke 1:35, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
– Contrast Gabriel’s “God will do these things” with the Angel of the Lord who said “I will do these things.”
– Who is this Angel of the Lord? He is the Preincarnate Christ

5. A study of the three “mystery men” who appeared to Abraham. Yahweh appeared to Abraham (18:1); when he lifted up his eyes he saw three men (v. 2).

– Notice in Gen 18:1 “the LORD” (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham. How does “the LORD” appear? In the form of three men standing before him.
– Why three men? Because God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If you think you’ve got a response that somehow rules out the doctrine of the Trinity, let’s hear it.
– The doctrine of the Trinity is MORE than allowed in the Old Testament.  And as we continue to study the Person of Messiah as revealed in Old Testament prophecy, the fact that God is three Persons will scream louder and louder and louder.
– Just as God progressively revealed His sacrificial system and His law and His Messiah in the Old Testament prophecy, He similarly progressively revealed His Triune nature.

6. A study of the three-fold repetition of divine blessing with the three-fold repetition of the divine name. Paul saw in Num 6:24-26 a foreshadowing of the Trinity (2 Cor 13:14).

– Numbers 6:24-26 says, “‘”The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace.”‘
– 2 Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

THIS is the language of the Bible that revealed the coming of the Person – the DIVINE Person, the Second Person of the Trinity – of the coming Messiah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s hear what evolution logically entails:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ooops.  Did I say “free”???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now by Judge Richard Leon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I update this to note that Mark Steyn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3): Having Faith Like Jesus In The Bible

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2)

I have an analogy for what faith is like: at what age do you think the average child is when he or she realizes that one day – if they live long enough – that he or she will be old and gray?  How many times do they have to hear their grandparents say things like, “When I was your age…” or “When I was a little girl…” before they realize that their grandparents were once children like them and one day they’ll be old like their grandparents?  And yet, how many people – old or young – seriously live for the future???  My point here is that you can intellectually know something is true, but at some fundamental level simply refuse to believe it and act accordingly.  Obviously, if you know one day you’ll be old, common sense tells you that you ought to start seriously planning for that eventuality.  BUT VERY FEW PEOPLE DO THAT.  Half of Americans have ZERO savings for retirement.  People are even dumber in the shorter term: how many people know they shouldn’t eat something because it’s bad for them and then eat it anyway???  I’ve certainly done that.  You know you’ll pay dearly for something you’re doing now in the future, but you just don’t care BECAUSE YOU WANT WHAT YOU WANT NOW.  It’s not that you don’t know what will happen; you simply put it off, refuse to think about it.  And so with believing in God and the Bible.  I don’t need to keep wondering if there’s a God or if the Bible is His Word any more than I need to question if I’ll one day be old and gray like my grandparents were.  The difference between “knowledge” and “faith” is that extra step: “okay, there is a God and the Bible is His Word.  What should I do with those facts?  In what way should they make a difference in how I live my life?”  And then you ACT the way your common sense based on what you KNOW tells you how to act.  Knowledge becomes faith when you start making your decisions based on what you know about God and His Word.

There are many people who just can’t ever get to that point to true faith, no matter how much they “know” about God, just as there are many people who just won’t get messages such as, “You know you can’t eat like that or you’ll have a heart attack and die.”  The morgue proves the latter situation.  And the atheist is ultimately rather like my dog: I watch the beautiful sun set and contemplate its significance and my own significance before it; my dog sees it get dark.  I take communion and meditate on the sacrifice of Christ as exemplified in the elements; my dog eats crackers.  But we’re often like that, too.  Just as the atheists simply refuse to go to the next level – beyond what God and simple common sense say is self-evident – too many Christians simply refuse to act based on the knowledge that they either already have or truly ought to have.  And we have maybe just enough faith to be saved but not enough faith to actually live out our faith as a result.  There’s just a super-massive disconnect between what we know and how we act in spite of what we already know.  Which of course describes “foolishness.”

I’ll personalize it: When I stand before God, I won’t have the excuse of just not being sure that He’s actually there.  I don’t doubt that God is here for a second any more.  And yet how many times have I refused to think and feel and act given what I already KNOW is true!!!

To wrap it up in a nice little bow: there simply comes a point when you need to just BELIEVE your Bible really truly is the “Word of God” and therefore as a common sense RESULT of that knowledge treasure it, hunger for it and JUST READ IT.  And believe the message it has for you and be transformed daily by that message.  That’s the way the world ought to work if you’ve got common sense and it’s the way your spirituality ought to work if you’ve got any wisdom (which is just “spiritual common sense.”  I submit that “wisdom” is far more about “integrity” than it is about “intelligence.”  Wisdom isn’t about what you know; it’s about what you DO with what you know.  “Wisdom” is knowledge rightly APPLIED.  If I know that the Bible is truly God’s Word to me, and if I am wise, what will I do?  I’ll apply that knowledge by reading my Bible!  Every time I read my Bible I get another chance to hear the voice of God.  And so therefore I’ll read my Bible with a submissive heart that is at the same time eager to learn and obey.  But how many of us are FOOLS more often than we are WISE???

Now, as we read our Bibles, we may ask, “Is this experience subjective or objective?”  It’s both – to a point.  It’s subjective in the sense that I read the Bible in a personal sense as “God addressing me.”  But ultimately the Holy Spirit’s testimony invariably directs us AWAY from ourselves to the objective authority of Scripture.  The Bible is what it is, not what I want it to be or try to twist it into being.  To apply this to my friends and family, if our relationship is all about me, then I’ll tend to subjectively interpret things they say to my own advantage; but if I truly love those people, I’ll try to understand them in the way they intended to be understood.  It’s the same way with God’s Word.  I recall the comedy sketch where a man is reading a Bible and someone asks, “What are you doing?” and he replies, “Searching for loopholes.”  When we read our Bible as “God’s Word,” we will tend to read it in an objective (and LITERAL) sense.  But yet another fact is that my experience of reading God’s Word is not merely “a private matter”; rather it is an experience common to all God’s people.  The Christian community, led by the Holy Spirit, ought to serve as a check and balance against over-subjective implications or experiences.

Consider, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3).  As a student in seminary, I first began to see a problem that has perverted much of higher education.  At the graduate level, the student is (particularly at liberal universities) encouraged to consider for a dissertation a completely different approach, a new way to interpret, etc.  But historic Christianity was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  There’s a fundamental tension there.  Do you see that?  You practically BEG for heresy to enter into your domain.  And that’s exactly what has happened at many schools that began as institutions of the Christian gospel that were perverted into synagogues of Satan. Each generation was like a tide that progressively carried out the foundation as every new class searched for something new and different.  As culture changes, I want to be able to innovate such that I can reach people in new ways – but with the same gospel that Jesus and Paul taught rather than one that is “modern” and “contemporary.”

Now, one could contrast two fields such as science and religion and see the differences with one being intended to innovate and the other being intended to conserve (the teaching/values of God handed down to us).  But even THAT isn’t correct, because science ALSO has been severely distorted and altered and perverted by the constant itching for the next new thing, the next scientific fad.  C.S. Lewis wrote about how easy it would be to pervert science into a religious system by requiring obedience to its findings, by instilling groupthink and promoting a lack of healthy skepticism for its conclusions, and by dominating society.  I think all that has already happened.

Ultimately, Christians simply have no choice but to recognize the authority of the Bible as God’s Word.  It comes from beyond ourselves as we simply allow God to be God.

What is “inspiration”?  It is the activity of the Holy Spirit whereby He superintended the human authors in Scripture so that their writings became a normative expression in human language of God’s Word to all humanity.  To call the Bible “inspired” is merely another way of saying that it is God’s authoritative self-revelation.

God was directly involved in the writing of the Bible: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16).  God’s breath is a graphic metaphor in the OT for the action of God, particularly through His Spirit (see Gen 2:7; Job 33:4; Ps 33:6).  The statement that Scripture is “God-breathed” affirms its divine origin and character and implies something much stronger than the English word “inspired”; in this sense they are EXPIRED – breathed out by God.  Note in 2 Tim that the object of God’s action is the written Scripture; the human writers aren’t even mentioned.  They are of course involved, but the actual forming of Scripture is referred wholly to God’s activity.  Note that “all” refers to the entire Bible, rather than merely some parts of it that may seem more “inspired” (such as the “Thus says the Lord” passages in the OT).

Another key passage of the doctrine of Inspiration is 2 Peter 1:19-21 – “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  This passage confirms and actually extends the teaching of 2 Tim 3:16.  The words in the Bible did not emerge from the writers’ private reflections, but rather “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  That same word “carried along” is used in Acts 27:15 to describe a ship “carried along” by a powerful storm.  God’s “carrying” is far more gentle than that of a storm, but this is a strong statement of the divine activity in the production of the entire body of Scripture.

The third key passage is John 10:34-36: “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?  If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and Scripture cannot be set aside--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”  The exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees goes back to Psalm 82 regarding the discussion of “gods” in the law, but I cite this regarding something Jesus says about the Law: I prefer the rendering of the KJV and NASB, “and the Scripture cannot be broken.”  That same conviction of Jesus about the absolute authority and complete inspiration of Scripture emerges when Jesus equates the words of the OT with the voice of God.  See Matt 19:4-5 – “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”  So we have, “the Creator…said.”  And the man leaving his father and mother part is Gen 2:24 – which does NOT quote God as the speaker.  It is Moses editorializing the meaning of Adam’s words in vs. 23.  The point here is that whenever ANY Scripture speaks, it is God speaking.

I am going to here ask a question: in your view, are the red-letter words of Jesus in the Gospel more or less inspired than the black letter words in the Gospels, or than the epistles of Paul, etc.?  Do you see why the words of ALL Scripture are ALL equally inspired???  The same Jesus who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Gospels was under the power and inspiration of the same Holy Spirit who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Pauline epistles.  Which is to say that St. John was just as inspired when he wrote the Book of Revelation as he was when he wrote his Gospel.

When St. Paul (or any of the prophets or apostles) and Jesus meet, there is no question which one will bow down before the other.  Jesus us Lord.  But that is not at issue when we talk about the authority of the Bible.  Rather, the same Holy Spirit that spoke through Jesus also spoke through Paul and the apostles and the prophets.

There’s a saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  Someone who wants to hold that the sayings of Jesus are more authoritative than any other writings in the Bible may have a sincere desire to uphold the authority of Jesus, but what has that person in effect done?  Undermined the authority of the REST of the Bible.  Think about it: if the Bible that the prophets and apostles wrote has 100% authority, how then can the “red letter” passages of Jesus have more than 100%/absolute authority???

Jesus is God.  But He NEVER put “His” authority over or above the authority of the REST of Scripture.  Because the rest of Scripture – ALL of Scripture – is the Word of God.  And God never contradicts God.

When we talk about inspiration, we use two adjectives – “verbal” and “plenary.”  The doctrine of verbal inspiration holds that the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible were not merely inspired in the topics or the ideas they described, but in the very WORDS that they used.  Note that this does not mean that God “dictated” the Bible, but rather that he chose, shaped and guided his human vessels such as that they – through the agency of the Holy Spirit – were accurately thinking and writing the thoughts of God.  “Plenary” means that the inspiration described above in “verbal” applies to the whole Bible, to “all Scripture” (2 Tim 3:16).  This is not to say that every single part of the Bible is as equally significant as every other part, any more than that every brush stroke of a painter is just as significant (e.g., the background of “Mona Lisa” is not as important as the face and the smile – BUT THE SAME ARTIST PAINTED THE ENTIRE PAINTING).  So we can rightly consider some books “background” (e.g. “Leviticus”).  But Leviticus is just as much the Word of God as the Gospel of John.

How does God’s Word revealed through human agency work?  There will always be a mystery this side of heaven.  But assume for the sake of discussion that I am right now completely filled with the Holy Spirit.  Would you say that a) I am still me or that b)I have become a “godbot” or a theological meat puppet that God dangles on a string?  I am stating categorically that I would still be me – and in fact I would be the IDEAL me, the very best me that I could possibly be.  Put another way, at the moment of the Rapture, do you believe that YOU will be a recreated meat puppet, OR do you believe that you will maintain your unique sense of identity?  Again, I believe we will still be the same people – just perfected examples of the same people.  In heaven, I will still be “me”; but I will be the me that God always intended for me to be.  I will be the perfect me. And l’ll be able to express God’s thoughts in my words.

Now, in the unique case of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible, should you believe that when the Holy Spirit came upon them that God obliterated their individual personalities?  Absolutely not!  God doesn’t work that way (I have frequently wished that He would!).  Rather, under special inspiration, God guided and shaped each writer’s experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc., in such a manner that they thought God’s thoughts after Him.  And they expressed those thoughts – in their own words – exactly as God intended.  Because they were uniquely filled with the Spirit of God.

Orthodox Christians who believe in the faith “which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) understand that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.  Both of these terms are nothing more than the inevitable concomitant of the divine authority and inspiration of the Bible as God’s Word.  To assert with Jesus that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17) and to literally appeal to its very letter (Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17) is the essence of what we seek when we use terms like “infallible and inerrant.”  “Infallible” carries the primary quality of not being misleading.  All the Bible’s assertions are truthful and worthy of confidence.  There is a contrast between God’s eternal self-testimony with human fallibility.  There are a few things that must be understood, such as that “infallibility” refers to God’s message as a whole rather than in isolation.  For example, if we quote James’ question, “Can faith save him” (James 2:14 KJV) with its implied answer “no,” we miss the point of the Book of James.  The infallibility of Scripture is attained when we read James 2:14 within the total framework of the letter of James as set alongside the complementary teaching of the rest of Scripture.  Another qualification of “infallibility” is the intention of the author.  Scripture is infallible ONLY AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED; it does NOT follow that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible.

“Inerrant” conveys the sense that the Bible has been supervised down to its very words by the God of truth, and therefore we can be confident that it will be free from error.  Thus whenever the Bible prescribes the content of our belief (doctrine) or the pattern of our living (ethics), or records actual events (history), it speaks the truth.  We go back to the intention of the author or speaker: the inerrant truth of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son does not require us to assert that there has ever been such a family or that the events of the story actually occurred.  It was a parable and the inerrant truth was the meaning of the story, not the historicity of events.  Again, like infallibility, we find that only when any passage of Scripture is interpreted in harmony with the rest of the Bible and we consider the author’s/speaker’s intention, will the inerrant truth be plainly perceived.

So having the very Word of God, how should we interpret it?  Let’s talk about “hermeneutics,” the science of interpretation (that’s what the Greek word “hermeneutics” means, “to translate or to interpret”).  To be properly interpreted, the Bible must be interpreted literally (i.e., the historico-grammatical method), with the natural, straightforward sense of a text being fundamental.  This sense does NOT demand “literalism.”  We do NOT need to interpret 2 Chron 16:9 (“For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth”) as meaning that God has a whole bunch of eyeballs sweeping over the globe.  We rather understand it as being a passage that literally teaches God’s omniscient knowledge.  Further, we interpret according to the original meaning of a passage, and therefore we must seek to understand the original setting as we try to relate a passage to ourselves.  We interpret according to literary form, and thus read poetry or parables differently than we would read historical narrative or doctrinal passages.  And we interpret according to context.  We do not take a verse in isolation, but we also read the rest of the paragraph and we also understand what we read as it relates to the rest of the Bible.  The Bible must be interpreted by the rest of the Bible.  This is known as “harmonization.”  There is a unity and a self-consistency in Scripture that derives from its Ultimate Single Author God.  Also, the Bible must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.  True spiritual understanding is not natural to us; it is God’s gift (Matt 11:25; 16:17).  It is crucial to understand that God’s Spirit is HOLY, and what we understand of God’s truth is therefore related more to the extent of our obedience than it is to the capacity of our brains.  Jesus taught, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matt 5:8).  Note He did not say, “Blessed are the vast in intellect” or “Blessed are the weighty in academia.”  How far one can see depends upon how high one has climbed and NOT to how well one is equipped.  We have to approach Scripture in an attitude of prayer from an obedient heart if we seek to rightly understand it.  Finally, the Bible must be interpreted dynamically.  Hebrews 4:12 teaches, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”  God’s Spirit is a living Spirit and He uses His Word in accordance with His goals for His people, their regeneration and sanctification.  And therefore the Word of God as we rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15) must be brought to the surface and put to work in the present rather than being a scholarly tome that gathers dust on a shelf.  Therefore, having asked, “what did this passage mean in its own time and context?” and “what does it mean in the light of the whole of Scripture?” we must additionally ask, “what does this mean today – here and now – in the lives of people today, that person I’m trying to reach, and my own life?”

It Must be Nice Being A Liberal And Never Having To Stand Accountable For All The Times You’re Completely WRONG

Do you remember this statement by a stupid liberal ideologue?

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

That ridiculously stupid and proven to be thoroughly false statement was made by Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.  The selfsame University of East Anglia also being THE hub of “global warming” which morphed into “climate change” which is also the site of one of the most dishonest scientific frauds of all time.  “Doctor” Viner threatened the planet by “warning” us that “within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’”.

Where is that idiot now?  He’s doing fine, I assure you.  Which begs the question, how can you be a “principal advisor for climate change” and an “internationally recognized expert” and be a completely disproven and frankly disgraced idiot at the same time?  Or is being a completely disproven and disgraced idiot a resume enhancer for the aforementioned accolades???

Well, Al Gore is so good at being an idiot liberal that they actually gave him a Nobel Prize for it.  Let’s go down memory lane:

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY… Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, December 13, 2013, 5:09 PM

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” “Five Years”

This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007. That means that this year the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

Junk scientist Al Gore also made the same prediction in 2009.

From the video:

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.

Today Cairo had its first snowfall in 100 years.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll found the original Gore video from 2008.

For the official record, those of you who are clutching your chests in fear because Al Gore said it and it therefore must be true, North Pole ice is actually doing just fine.  The arctic ice actually GREW by 29% this year.

Speaking of idiot liberals being completely wrong over and over again and never having to suffer for it, Gabriel Malor tweeted out a long list of journalists who have made their careers by falsely branding the enemies of Marx, Stalin and Obama.

And I must mention who just won the “Lie of the Year” award.  But like Benghazi (the planned and coordinated terror attack that resulted in the deaths of the first US ambassador murdered since the failed Carter Years along with three other American heroes that was falsely blamed on a Youtube video to cover Obama), like Fast and Furious (where the Obama administration placed guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels which used them to murder an American Border Patrol agent), like the IRS (where Obama thug bureaucrats illegally targeted conservatives for “anti-Obama rhetoric”) and many other situations, Obama has held NOBODY accountable.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sabelius promised Congress that the ObamaCare website would be up and running and ready to go by the October 1 deadline (see here for a more complete version of history).  Where is she?  Still at her lousy job, that’s where.  Despite the fact that this wicked woman has been caught red-handed lying over and over again.

Now of course we’re finding out that Obama deliberately delayed implementing rules he KNEW would screw up the universe and jeopardize his re-election.  And we can now realize that the reason so much disaster is happening is because in making politics rule over governance there simply wasn’t TIME to implement all the damn laws.  But don’t worry, nobody will be held accountable for that deceit.

Because being a liberal, being wrong, and not being held accountable for being wrong, goes hand in hand.

Being a brain-dead ideologue liberal “academician” or “journalist” and being proven to be completely wrong and completely idiotic only to get away with it because liberals are pathologically dishonest people utterly divorced from truth or reality goes hand in hand.

Do you want to know the REAL cause of global warming?  It’s all the hot vapors filling the skulls of all the liberal pseudo-scientists and journalists.  Those global warming gasses even put cow flatulence to shame as a threat to our environment.

Orwell’s 1984 Comes Alive Under Big Brother Obama’s Regime

Well, congratulations are in order, Barack Hussein.  I mean, sure, you screwed up your hijacking of what was once the finest health care system in the world in just about every way one could possibly screw it up, but there is one thing you’ve truly excelled at: and that is making pretty much every single nightmare that George Orwell ever had come to life.

Let’s see what Orwell said about the future:

Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.

And:

Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Let’s see how Obama brought that vision to fulfillment:

The FBI Can Turn On Your Webcam Without You Even Knowing
By Dell Cameron on December 08, 2013

Not only can the FBI activate cameras on civilian computers, but the agency has been doing so for several years. That’s according to Marcus Thomas, a former assistant director with the bureau, who spoke to the Washington Post about the controversial computer hacking technique used by law enforcement in the United States.

Most webcams come equipped with an indicator light, which alerts users when they’re being recorded. However, the FBI supposedly has the ability to disable this feature.

The tactic has been utilized “mainly” against suspected terrorists but is also used in non-terrorism related investigations, Thomas said. One issue highlighted by the Post is the difficulty law enforcement agencies face in determining jurisdiction while intercepting online communication. For instance, state or local law enforcement officers may only have the authority to perform surveillance on an individual within their state or municipal boundaries.

In April, a federal magistrate judge in Texas refused to sign a warrant because the location of an individual, who was suspected of bank fraud, could not be determined, the Post reported. While the FBI may not face the same jurisdictional limitations, it has implored Congress in the past to allow for the sharing of technical expertise with state and local law enforcement officials.

Legal limitations placed on online surveillance have long been considered a hindrance to the FBI. Compared to the National Security Agency, the FBI has been extraordinarily vocal about its intentions. The agency’s primary goal in 2013, as stated by Andrew Weissman at the American Bar Association, was to expand wiretapping capabilities to include all forms of real-time online communication, such as conversations that take place over Google chat.

Valerie Caproni, a former FBI general counsel, previously outlined the agency’s concerns before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. “The challenge facing our state and local counterparts is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no systematic way to make existing federally developed electronic intercept solutions widely available across the law enforcement community,” she told members of Congress.

Caproni’s testimony included descriptions of two criminal investigations, which she said illustrated the need for increased surveillance powers. The first case cited involved a narcotics investigation; the second, the distribution of child pornography. Both of these crimes, while serious violations of the law, do not constitute a threat to national security.

In 2012, the FBI was allocated $54 million by the U.S. Senate to establish the Domestic Communications Assistance Center (DCAC or NDCAC), a secretive unit charged with enhancing the U.S. government’s Internet-based wiretapping capabilities. While the exact nature of NDCAC’s operations are hidden from the public record, what is known is that customized wiretapping hardware is developed at their Quantico, Va., headquarters.

New wiretap technologies developed by NDCAC are implemented through the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a law that requires telecommunications carriers—including Internet service providers—to accommodate government surveillance by retrofitting their equipment. In coordination with other agencies, the FBI has continuously sought to expand the authority granted to it by CALEA.

In response to questions about NDCAC, an FBI official told reporters, “The NDCAC will have the functionality to leverage the research and development efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement with respect to electronic surveillance capabilities and facilitate the sharing of technology among law enforcement agencies.“

Law enforcement techniques generally advance to remain proportional to methods of criminals, who may be aided by new technologies while committing crimes or evading capture. However, since disclosing capabilities could weaken operations targeting dangerous criminals, critics warn that the state’s authority is subject to abuse. That’s only heightened by the digital nature of these tactics, which could prevent citizens from knowing of rights violations.

If police were to inadvertently perform a search on the wrong house, for example, the owner could take legal action against the department responsible. In contrast, if that same individual’s rights are infringed when police hack the wrong webcam, the violation is far less likely to be exposed.

The debate over state surveillance powers isn’t likely to end anytime soon. If you’d prefer to not get shy while standing in front of your appliances, you can always slap duct tape over your webcam.

What was that last sentence from Orwell?  Oh, yes:

You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

And voilà:

NSA Collected Info on 125 Billion Phone Calls in 30 Days
Thursday, 24 Oct 2013 03:17 PM
By Courtney Coren

The National Security Agency collected information on 124.8  billion phone calls in one 30 day period earlier this year, including about 3  billion phone calls made from the United States, according to documents  initially released by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Data on  NSA’s Boundless Information program shows that the phone calls made during  January 2013 were monitored from all over the world, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The top five countries where phone calls were monitored by the NSA are  Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, with the United States  coming in sixth, and Egypt and Iran taking the seventh and eighth spots,  according to information compiled by the intelligence website Cryptome  using a heat map from the  Boundless Informant program it acquired from The Guardian.

Other  countries that are consider U.S. allies such as Mexico and France are demanding answers as to why they have been  included in the United States monitoring activities.
The Foreign  Intelligence Surveillance Court gave the NSA the okay to continue collecting U.S. phone call records on Oct.  11.

Related Stories:
New NSA Spying Allegations Enrage European  Allies

Obama is the only man in the history of the world – Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon included – who EVER used the IRS as a thug to bully, harass and intimidate his political opponents.  The crime was “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  And, yes, there is NO evidence that any progressives were targeted.

Orwell would have probably come up with a nice euphemism like “thoughtcrime,” but “anti-Obama rhetoric” is probably the best Obama’s thugs can do at this point.

I know that liberals would like to drag Bush into this hellhole that is the Stalinist little world of Obama, but I don’t remember Bush ever sanctimoniously claiming that his administration would be so “transparent” and how he would do so damn much to ensure our civil liberties and prevent executive overreach (unlike the devil Bush).  We can go back now and see those words from Obama and see what an incredibly cynical and dishonest hypocrite Obama was from the very beginning of his presidency.  We can count the damn ways that Obama was a lying hypocrite straight from hell.

It’s not like “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what” was this liar-in-chief’s only lie.  My favorite version of Obama’s lie repeated at LEAST 37 times is: “if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan — you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan.  Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”  Because we now know that, yes, the White House WAS talking about taking that away from you.

And we now know that Obama’s “political advisors” were telling Obama to go on lying to the American people regardless of what the policy advisors said because, well, “in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can  probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.”  I mean, Obama HAD to lie to you, right???

The Nobel Prize people already gave Obama the Nobel Prize when he hadn’t actually accomplished Jack Squat.  So in that spirit let’s agree to give Obama the Stalinist of the Century Prize right now.  Because while there’s technically still another 87 years to go in this century, we should just give Obama all the accolades anyway, right???  And Barack Hussein has – as it is rather easy to document – done FAR more to earn the Stalinist of the Century Award than he ever did to earn his Nobel Peace Prize.

Unless they gave it to Obama for being the Best.  Fascist.  Ever.

Let’s not call things “Orwellian” anymore.  That term is outdated now that we’ve got the more accurate term “Obamian.”

Amazingly, even the quite leftist legal scholar Jonathon Turley now has this to say about the cancer of the Obama presidency:

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

I laugh now when I read the horror of the New York Times when they described the “Imperial Presidency” of George W. Bush.  Because Obama’s executive overreach makes George Bush look like Ron Paul at his most libertarian moment EVER in comparison.  And Obama’s imperial presidency makes Bush’s look humble and meek by comparison.

Thanks for nothing, Big Brother Obama.  At least, until one of your many thugs sticks a cage with a rabid rat in it over my face, anyway.

History Repeats Itself Yet Again: Obama The Uberliberal Has GUTTED America’s Ability To Defend Itself

So here is the state of American defense five years into the president Obama who applied his mastery of taking over the health care system to perfecting our defense:

Is the military still ready for war _ or should you be worried?
Article by: PAULINE JELINEK , Associated Press
Updated: November 29, 2013 – 3:00 AM

WASHINGTON — Warnings from defense officials and some experts are mounting and becoming more dire: The nation’s military is being hobbled by budget cuts.

“You’d better hope we never have a war again,” the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said of the decline in what the military calls its readiness.

So should Americans be worried?

A look at what the Pentagon means by “ready” and where things stand:

READINESS

It’s the armed forces’ ability to get the job done, and it’s based on the number of people, the equipment and the training needed to carry out assigned missions.

As an example, an Army brigade has a list of the things it would have to do in a full-level war, called its “mission essential task list.” And a 4,500-member brigade is deemed ready when it has the right supplies and equipment, is in good working condition and pretty much has that full number of people, well-trained in their various specialties, to conduct its tasks.

Military units are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best, or fully ready. Typically, a unit freshly returned from a tour of duty would carry a 5 rating, since it’s missing people because of casualties or because some are moving on to other jobs, and it’s missing equipment that was battered or worn in the field and is in for repairs or must be replaced. A unit can be sent out in less-than-full ready status, but officials warn that would mean it could do less, take longer to do it, suffer more casualties, or all of the above.

THE U.S. MILITARY RATING NOW

Detailed information on that is classified secret so adversaries won’t know exactly what they’re up against. But because of ongoing budget fights, officials in recent weeks have given broad examples of readiness lapses in hopes of convincing Congress and the American people that cutbacks, particularly in training budgets, are creating a precarious situation.

For instance, an Air Force official says they’ve grounded 13 combat fighter/bomber squadrons or about a third of those active duty units. And the Army says only two of its 35 active-duty brigades are fully ready for major combat operations. The service typically wants to have about 12 ready at any given time so a third of the total can be deployed, a third is prepared for deployment and a third is working to get ready.

Analysts say a decade of massive spending increases have built a strong force superior to anything else out there. “We could certainly fight another war on the order of the first Gulf War (1991) without any problems; the Air Force could do air strikes in Syria,” said Barry M. Blechman of the Stimson Center think tank. “We wouldn’t want to get involved in another protracted war (like Iraq and Afghanistan), but in terms of the types of military operations we typically get involved in, we’re prepared for that.”

THE PROBLEM

Even those who believe the situation is not yet dire say that eventually these budget cuts will catch up with the force. Some analysts say another two or three years of training cuts, for instance, will leave the U.S. military seriously unprepared.

As an added wrinkle, the cuts come just as the military had planned a significant re-training of the force. That is, the bulk of U.S. forces were organized, trained and equipped over the past 12 years for counterinsurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan and now need to sharpen skills needed to counter other kinds of threats in other parts of the world.

For instance, much of the Air Force focus in recent years has been on providing close air support for the ground troops countering insurgents and not on skills that would be needed if the U.S. were involved in a conflict with a foreign government — skills like air-to-air combat and air interdiction.

A SOLUTION

There’s broad agreement in Washington that budget cuts should be tailored rather than done by the automatic, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration over the next decade. There is not agreement on politically sensitive potential savings from closing and consolidating some military bases, holding the line on troop compensation that has grown over the war years or drawing down more steeply from the wartime size of the force.

Finding replacement cuts for sequestration is the priority of budget talks led by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his Senate counterpart, Patty Murray, D-Wash., who are facing an informal Dec. 13 deadline to reach a deal. Any agreement that they negotiate could still be rejected by their colleagues.

For the official record, I document that OBAMA was responsible for “sequestration.”  It was HIS idea from HIS White House:

Barack Obama has now repeatedly said that sequestration – which he now says is a “meat cleaver” that would have “brutal consequences” that would destroy America – was “Congress’ idea” (with the implication that it was therefore the Republicans’ idea.  He said back on October 22:

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

But Barack Obama is a documented liar in claiming that.  Because WHO actually proposed sequestration again?

Let’s see what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was forced to concede during an interview with Fox News anchor Brett Bair (note: I added the first remark by Jay Carney to the transcript after transcribing it from the video):

Jay Carney: Somehow, what they [Republicans] liked then, they don’t like now and they’re trying to say that it was the president’s idea.

Bret Baier: Fair to say, but it was the president’s idea… You concede that point, right?

Jay Carney: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build the mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas yes put forward, yes, by the president’s team.

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

It is a documented historical fact that it was BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S White House that proposed sequestration, NOT Congress and most certainly NOT Republicans.

So, yeah, it was the president’s idea.  It was Obama’s plan that Obama put forward.  If the Republicans agreed to it in order to get something done on the last debt ceiling fight.  And after all  the time you’ve spent labelling Republicans as “obstructionists” for not agreeing with you, NOW you demonize them as evil after they DO agree with you???

So anybody who wants to blame Republicans for this mess is simply demon possessed.  You hold a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF responsible for the defense of our nation, and NOBODY else.  Especially when it was aforementioned commander-in-chief’s damn idea to begin with.

Okay, let’s remember: Jimmy Carter was a liberal president who gutted the military and left America weak – and therefore our enemies aggressive and belligerent – which set us up for the Iran Hostage crisis.

Bill Clinton was a Democrat president who gutted both our military capability and our intelligence capability and set us up for the 9/11 attack which took place less than eight months after his eight years in office.  Every single one of the 9/11 terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans was already in the country and funded and trained during Bill Clinton’s blind watch.

I’ve written about Slick Willie’s impact on our military and our intelligence:

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”  The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

George Tenet had this to say as he testified about what he found when he took over the CIA:

By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

I remember watching TV news programs like “Nightline” and seeing coverage of the war going on in Bosnia.  The same Clinton who sent them there had so gutted their capability that fighter wings were reduced to desperately trying to cannibalize the parts from aircraft to keep the increasingly few that were still flying in the air.  And what Clinton publicly did to the military – fully 90% of the cuts Clinton made to the federal payroll were from the military (286,000 of the 305,000 employees cut were military).  And according to George Tenet, the rest of them were in the CIA and NSA.

And then 9/11 happened as our enemies literally SAW our weakness and began to salivate.

Where are we now?

Consider China:

China sends warplanes to newly declared air zone

and the resultingly bold Obama response to China’s aggression?

U.S. Advises Commercial Jets to Honor China’s Rules

Obama can say whatever he wants to, but his words don’t mean squat when the REST of the world – and in particular our airlines – are bowing down before China’s power.

I submit that Obama didn’t merely “dangerously dither” in his ad-hoc policy in the Chinese belligerence toward Japan – he outright turned his back on yet another ally in order to appease an enemy.

China is deliberately provoking conflict with the United States because they know that Obama isn’t a strong leader and that he will back down.

What’s going on in socialist paradise North Korea?  They just seized an elderly Korean war veteran and they won’t give our American back to us.  They say Obama is a weak little coward and they can do whatever they want.

I think of the glory of Rome when NOBODY messed with a Roman citizen because Rome would lay waste to their country if they did.

Another American – Alan Gross – just “celebrated” his third year of Obama not giving a damn that an American was imprisoned in Cuba.  Oh, I’m sorry, that’s dated: MAKE THAT HIS FOURTH ANNIVERSARY.

Alan Gross’ wife says that Obama has done NOTHING to help her get her American back.  I heard her state on Fox News this morning that she had NEVER HEARD ONCE from the Obama White House.

Given the experience of the mother of one of the Benghazi attack victims, though, if Obama is ignoring you AT LEAST HE’S NOT LYING TO YOU.

In Afghanistan, Obama is repeating his own history of abject weakness.  Just as George Bush won the war in Iraq and then Obama lost the peace, Obama in his utter, pathological weakness and cowardice is about to lose Afghanistan the very same way he lost Iraq (and see here).  We are on a trajectory to completely leave Afghanistan after all of those years fighting to have a role there.  Why?  Because the Karzai in Afghanistan realized what the leaders of Iraq also realized: that Barack Obama would be a weak and untrustworthy “ally” and it would be better to turn elsewhere than turn to America.  And as this article itself documents, they’re right – because Obama simply cannot be trusted.

Meanwhile, the deals an incredibly weak, cynical and desperate Obama has made first in Syria and now in Iran simply shocks anybody who has so much as a single clue.  Obama has guaranteed that Syrian dictator and mass murdering thug Assad will stay in power.  In fact Obama in his weakness has guaranteed that Assad MUST remain in power in order for the wmd deal to work.  Which means Syria and Russia just got everything they most wanted while they spend the next years playing America for the fool it is.  As for Iran, Obama has guaranteed that Iran will be in an economically stronger position to announce that they have joined the nations with nuclear weapons as soon as they have successfully developed the ballistic missile system they need to give their nuclear threat any real teeth.  There is frankly no reason for Iran to develop nuclear weapons until they have the means to deliver those weapons especially to Israel and the United States.

The Iranian president announced that the deal Obama made allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.  And of course it does because Obama won’t do a damn thing to stop it.

Another true statement is that Obama’s deal – again in the Iranian president’s own words – isolates Israel.

Obama is a “leader” who leaves America’s allies twisting in the wind while he makes desperate deals to appease our enemies.  And as a result he will have “peace in our time.”  A completely false and naïve peace just like the last damn time we had such a “peace,” but Obama couldn’t give less of a damn as long as the world doesn’t blow up until he’s out of office.

Interestingly, the Great Tribulation officially begins when Israel signs a seven year covenant with a soon-coming world leader the Bible calls the Antichrist or “the beast.”  What we just saw was Israel being so isolated and so desperate that it will have no one else to turn to BUT the Antichrist.  Because her one great ally America abandoned her in her time of greatest need.

There’s something called “going down for the third time.”  The first two times you go under weaken you and leaves you less able to stay above the water line; it’s the third time that drowns you.  Stupid, pathetic, weak American sheeple elected Jimmy Carter, only to suffer massive decline and erosion of confidence in the minds of our allies while emboldening our enemies.  And we suffered terribly as a result.  Stupid, pathetic, weak American sheeple elected Bill Clinton, only to suffer the same fate in a series of terrorist attacks that culminated in the massive 9/11 attack.  And now we’ve really gone and done it.  I truly don’t think America will ever truly emerge from the damage that Barack Obama will have done by the time he finally finishes disgracing the office of president of the United States.

Note that I have never said that Barack Obama is the Antichrist; what Obama IS is the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.  If you voted for Obama, you VOTED for the Antichrist to come – and you will almost certainly just as enthusiastically vote to take the mark of the beast when the coming big government leader imposes the mark as he promises the ultimate economic big government Utopia.

I’ve pointed out the simple historic FACT that Democrats SAVAGED George Bush when he said Iran was a nuclear threat.  Iran WILL HAVE nuclear weapons as a result of Democrats and Obama.  And the world will be a far more frightening place that careens even faster toward Armageddon when they get the bomb and the missile to deliver it.

And we can’t do a damn thing to stop it, thanks to the man we wickedly made our president.