Month: May 2016

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SUES TO OVERTURN BABY BURIAL LAW SO IT CAN USE ABORTED CHILDREN FOR RESEARCH

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SUES TO OVERTURN BABY BURIAL LAW SO IT CAN USE ABORTED CHILDREN FOR RESEARCH 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Officials with Indiana University filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in seeking to overturn a newly-passed baby burial law so that the school can use the bodies of aborted babies in medical research—a claim that some say is both unnecessary and unethical.



As previously reported, Indiana lawmakers passed a bill in March that provides requirements surrounding the disposition of babies who are aborted, requiring that they either be buried or cremated, in order to keep fetal remains out of landfills.



“An abortion clinic or health care facility having possession of an aborted fetus shall provide for the final disposition of the aborted fetus,” H.B. 1337 reads. “The burial transit permit requirements … apply to the final disposition of an aborted fetus, which must be interred or cremated.”







The bill also bans the murder of unborn children based on a Down Syndrome diagnosis or any other disability, but stops short of ending all abortions.



Planned Parenthood quickly filed a federal lawsuit over the matter, asserting that the law interferes with mothers’ wishes to have an abortion.



“It is an attempt by the state of Indiana to interfere with and actually prohibit a woman’s right to determine whether or not to have an abortion,” Ken Falk of the ACLU of Indiana, which is representing the abortion giant in court, told reporters. “That is a right that the United States Supreme Court has stressed that a woman absolutely has and cannot be prohibited.”



Officials with Indiana University, which has locations in Indianapolis, Bloomington, Fort Wayne, South Bend and other cities, sought to join the Planned Parenthood suit, but were denied as its claims differed. Therefore, on Wednesday, they filed their own suit, asserting that the baby disposal law interferes with its academic freedom and ability to find cures for neurological diseases.



According to reports, the university’s Stark Neurosciences Research Institute uses babies from miscarriages and abortions to study conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and autism. It obtains the bodies of the children from the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington.



But receiving or selling aborted babies will now be considered a felony under the new law, which is set to take effect in July.



“We don’t do research just for the [expletive] of it,” Fred Cate, vice president for research, told Inside Higher Ed.



“We do new research because it leads to new discoveries and creations, which benefit peoples’ lives,” he said. “If we are told by state law that we cannot use certain tools in that research, tools that are widely used in every other state, that are professionally acceptable, that are ethically acceptable, then we are hurting the people of the state of Indiana. We’re hurting the people who benefit from this research, and we’re hurting the people who do that research.”



However, Dr. David Prentice, vice president and research director at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told reporters that there are other ways to conduct research besides using dead babies.



“Their complaint makes vague statements about the need for the research, as well as the oft-cited but unproven claim that they will not be able to hire research faculty if the prohibition remains in effect,” he stated. “However, their claims lack any substantive proofs that the research use of aborted fetal tissue is critical or unique.”



Six doctors from the University of Wisconsin also wrote in an op-ed last September that the “use of fetal tissue is unethical and unnecessary.”



“The argument that fetal-derived tissues must be used in research to develop medical treatments is false,” they wrote. “Many therapies have been developed using cell lines not of fetal origin, including insulin for diabetes (produced in bacteria), Herceptin for breast cancer and tissue plasminogen activator for heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism (both developed in Chinese hamster ovary cells).”



The doctors also opined that it is rather the use of aborted babies that is hurting humanity as some scientists will not work in such an environment.



“To the claim that restricting the use of abortion-derived fetal tissue will cause research to come to a halt and an exodus of research talent…, we answer that we have experienced the opposite,” they explained. “Students and researchers have left science altogether after failing to find research laboratories that did not use abortion-derived or human embryonic tissues. Thus, the continued pursuit of these unethical avenues of research may cause us to lose brilliant minds, research grants and possibly the talent needed to discover cures to deadly diseases.”



“Ultimately, what matters most is that we cannot support the exploitation of one group of human beings (the preborn) for the benefit of another group,” the doctors continued. “We became scientists and physicians to serve humanity and to study the natural world in order to improve the human condition. Compromising these ethical standards undermines our work and taints future discoveries.”



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
OREGON WOMAN CONCERNED AFTER TRANSGENDER MAN ADMITTED AT WOMEN’S SHELTER
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

Oregon Woman Concerned After Man Who Identifies as Woman Admitted 



at Women’s Shelter



BY HEATHER CLARK



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





PORTLAND, Ore. — In the midst of discussion about transgender restroom issues, an Oregon woman is speaking out to tell her story after a man who identifies as a woman was permitted to share sleeping and restroom space with women at an all-women’s shelter.



Malka Davis, a formerly homeless woman, recently penned an op-ed for the Oregonian, in which she explained why she believes it was wrong for the shelter to allow the man to live at the facility among dozens of females.



The incident occurred in 2014 as Davis was seeking to put her life back together. She recounted that a few weeks into her stay that some of the other women seemed to be in distress, and came to find out that it was because a man who “self-identified” as a woman was in their midst. One woman even left altogether.







“The realization that a man was going to be sharing sleeping and bathroom space with us (in this particular area, there are no private or even semi-private rooms) was understandably met with tremendous anxiety, and, yes, even outrage,” Davis wrote.



But she soon learned that the women’s shelter was required to admit the man to the facility because of Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws.



“They (the women at the shelter) thought they had found a haven exclusively for women,” Davis said. “Little did they know that because of anti-discrimination laws any man who claims to identify as a woman can be admitted.”



Davis said that she treated the man kindly as he often confided in her, but she would not deny the fact that he was not a woman.



“[A]t no point did I come to regard Clarence as a woman, nor did I refer to him as one. I saw him as an intelligent, sensitive, but very fragile and confused man,” she stated. “That is to say, I afforded him the dignity he deserved as a human being without denying the truth of his gender.”



She also reiterated that she felt it wrong that he was required to be admitted to a facility strictly for women.



“It jeopardized the security of a dozen or so women for the benefit of one man’s sense of belonging,” Davis outlined. “Not only that, but for every man who is admitted into a women’s shelter under the speciousness of gender ideology, untold numbers of bona fide women are left waiting on the streets. That is not just unfair, it’s unjust.”



She said that many who push transgender issues do not often realize those who are affected by such choices, including women at homeless shelters, who have no say in whether or not they don’t want a man living and sleeping with them in their room.



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	
		
	
		
	

		
		
DOZENS SHOT OVER MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AS THE COLLAPSE OF CHICAGO ACCELERATES~COMPARABLE TO VENEZUELA
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

DOZENS SHOT OVER MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AS THE COLLAPSE OF CHICAGO ACCELERATES



BY MICHAEL SNYDER



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





Chaos and violence threaten to spiral out of control in America’s third largest city, and nobody seems to have any idea how to solve the problem.  After decades of control by the radical left, many parts of the “Windy City” have become rotting, decaying, gang-infested hellholes.  Just like Detroit, the city of Chicago is rapidly becoming a joke to the rest of the world, but a horribly corrupt political culture likely stands in the way of any type of major reform any time soon.  And just like much of the rest of the nation, a spirit of violence and civil unrest is rising in Chicago.  So far this year, the number of shootings in Chicago is up 50 percent compared to the same time period last year, and that was before we even got to Memorial Day weekend.  As of Sunday morning, at least 40 people had already been shot, and authorities were bracing for even more violence as the holiday weekend stretched on…





A string of nearly two dozen shootings on the West Side has pushed the number of people shot during the Memorial Day weekend to at least 40, with two more days to go.



As of early Sunday morning, the toll stood at four dead and 36 wounded across the city, including a 15-year-girl shot to death as she rode in a Jeep on Lake Shore Drive near Fullerton Avenue, police said.





The cries to fix what is wrong with Chicago are becoming increasingly desperate, but at this point the city is drowning in debt and is pretty much flat broke.



So the options for doing anything about this growing crisis are quite limited.



But that isn’t stopping prominent city leaders from speaking out.  According to the New York Times, Rev. Corey Brooks believes that “we could be looking at a blood bath” this summer if nothing changes…





“If something doesn’t change, if we don’t get jobs for these kids, if we don’t change the economic situation,I’m worried that we could be looking at a blood bath,” said the Rev. Corey Brooks, a pastor on the city’s South Side, a mostly African-American area where some of the shootings have been concentrated. “If something doesn’t happen, I fear that we’re potentially looking at one of the worst summers we’ve ever had.”



As of Friday morning, homicides in Chicago were up 52 percent in 2016, compared with the same period a year ago, and shootings had increased by 50 percent, though the pace of violence had slowed in recent weeks, the police said.





I believe that Rev. Brooks is correct, but he isn’t identifying the core of the problem.



Thanks in large part to unchecked illegal immigration, gang membership has been surging in Chicago.  Back in 2012, the Chicago Crime Commission estimated that there were 150,000 gang members living in the city, but of course by now that number is likely far higher.



No city in the United States has a higher population of gang members than Chicago does, and hundreds of factions are constantly battling for turf.  The police in Chicago insist that they have the situation under control, but everyone can see that they do not.



And how could they?  There are only 13,318 law enforcement officers of all types in the city of Chicago.  They are outnumbered by the gangs by much more than a 10 to 1 margin.  There is no way in the world that they are ever going to be able to stop the gang violence.  All they can do is hope to contain it.



Sadly, they are fighting a losing battle, because with each passing month thousands more gang members cross our southern border illegally and head directly for our major cities where they are warmly received by their gang brothers.



Perhaps this helps to explain why 3,000 millionaires left the city of Chicago last year.



Do you want to know somewhere else that has been controlled by the radical left for decades and that is now seeing chaos and violence spin out of control?



In Venezuela, we get to see what it looks like when an entire country starts to shut down.  The following comes from the New York Times…





The courts? Closed most days. The bureau to start a business? Same thing. The public defender’s office? That’s been converted into a food bank for government employees.



Step by step, Venezuela has been shutting down.



This country has long been accustomed to painful shortages, even of basic foods. But Venezuela keeps drifting further into uncharted territory.





At this point, more than 80 percent of all basic consumer products are in short supply, and some people have become so desperate that they are actually hunting cats and dogs for food.  My wife and I had a lot more to say about the rapidly deteriorating situation down in Venezueladuring a recent episode of our new television show.  It is so important to watch what is going on down there right now, because eventually the same things will be happening here in America too.



When society breaks down, people become very desperate, and crime spirals out of control.  The mafia and the gangs are having a field day at the moment, and the police are so overwhelmed that they can’t do much to stop them.



And if you need medical treatment down in Venezuela right now, you might as well forget it…





The Luis Razetti Hospital in the portal city of Barcelona looks like a war zone.



Patients can be seen balancing themselves on half-broken beds with days-old blood on their bodies.



They’re the lucky ones; most are curled up on the floor, blood streaming, limbs blackening.



Children lie among dirty cardboard boxes in the hallways without food, water or medication.



Without electricity or functioning machines, medics have had to create their own solutions. Two men who had surgery on their legs have their limbs elevated by makeshift slings made out of water bottles.





Most Americans would scoff at the suggestion that we could ever see scenes like that in the United States, but just a few years ago most Venezuelans would have probably said the exact same thing.



For so long, watchmen all over America have been endlessly warning people to get prepared.



But at some point, time runs out.



In fact, down in Venezuela time has already run out.  Store shelves all over the country are empty, there are chronic shortages of basic supplies, some people are hunting dogs and cats for food, and there has been an almost total breakdown of public services.



I wish that I could say that these kinds of conditions are only going to be limited to Venezuela.  But I cannot say that.  Great suffering is going to eventually spread all over the world, and that is going to include our own nation.



I hope that you are using this short period of relative stability wisely, because it will be gone way too soon.



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
BERNIE SANDERS’ SICK UTOPIA: THE MALICIOUS MYTH OF “DEMOCRATIC” SOCIALISM
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





BERNIE SANDERS’ SICK UTOPIA: 



THE MALICIOUS MYTH OF “DEMOCRATIC” SOCIALISM



BY Thomas DiLorenzo



SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/bernie-sanders-sick-utopia-the-malicious-myth-of-democratic-socialism/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



lewrockwell.com



In my forthcoming (July 18) book, The Problem with Socialism, I describe how socialism is always and everywhere an economic poison regardless of the form of government.  Socialism is socialism.  As Frederic Bastiat explained in his classic, The Law, the imposition of one social “plan” or set of “plans” on all of the society – a defining characteristic of all varieties of socialism — will have the same effects whether it is instituted by democracy or by a dictatorship.  Obamacare is Obamacare regardless of whether it was imposed by democracy or by a dictator.



All of history has proven that the effects of socialism are always and everywhere mass impoverishment; the destruction of civil liberties; tyrannical government; a population dependent on the state for survival; and the enrichment of the ruling class.  Everyone is equally impoverished while the political elite live high on the hog, whether it is the Soviet Union, African socialism, Latin American socialism, or any other kind of socialism.



At best, socialism turns people into spoiled children constantly demanding more and more freebies at the expense of . . . . who knows?  At worst, it becomes a totalitarian nightmare where dissenters are mass murdered by the millions, as was the case with twentieth-century socialism all over the world.



The latest display of the effects of the malicious myth of “democratic” socialism is the economic implosion of oil-rich Venezuela.  When the proud socialist Hugo Chavez became president he nationalized industries; redistributed land and businesses to political cronies; imposed pervasive, government-imposed price controls; and made himself popular by giving away lots of free stuff – even houses.  He was a Latin American Bernie Sanders, in other words. The entire socialist world spoke of the new “socialist paradise” of Venezuela.



But socialism is always and everywhere economic poison because of several fundamental reasons.  It destroys work incentives for one thing.  It is also guided by the false pretense that a few politicians can somehow do a better job of possessing and utilizing the detailed knowledge that millions of consumers, entrepreneurs, workers, business managers, investors, and market participants who make real market economies work possess.  And it foolishly asserts that rational economic decisions can be made without the benefit of private property, market prices based on supply and demand, and a market feedback mechanism that rewards those who serve their customers well with profits while punishing those who do not with losses.  By ignoring these realities the economic implosion of Venezuela was perfectly predictable and inevitable.



Venezuela has become reminiscent of the old Soviet Union where there were shortages of everything because of the economic chaos caused by the elimination of markets based on private property and prices determined by supply and demand.  A May 21 article in The Telegraph by Szu Ping Chan about how socialism turned Venezuela into “debt and hyperinflation hell” describes how people there now routinely “queue alongside hundreds of other Venezuelans for food, nappies, milk, and other basic goods.”  Everything is in short supply – or no supply – thanks to Chavez’s socialist price controls.  Black markets are the only thing saving the Venezuelan economy.



A recent “yahoo” news article entitled “Venezuela: Where a Hamburger is official $170” wrote of how stores are shuttered; restaurants are empty; “nobody is buying anything”; there are long lines of people waiting around stores for something – anything – that they can use to barter for things they actually need.  This again is exactly reminiscent of daily life in the old Soviet Union.



Venezuela has become one of the worst places in the world to do business, ranking 186th out of 189 in a World Bank index of “business friendliness.”  Only Libya, South Sudan, and Eritrea were worse.  Political corruption is rampant; of course.  No one can be in business without paying the “appropriate” bribes to one or another political hacks and criminals.



People in Venezuela “cannot afford to get ill because when you turn up at the hospital there is nothing,” says one Venezuelan cited by The Telegraph.  Sick people are desperate for antibiotics, which are all but non-existent.



Explosive government spending combined with declining oil prices made Venezuela a “debt hell” as Chavez and his successor, fellow socialist demagogue Nicolas Maduro, refused to admit the folly of their ways and resorted to massive money printing.  Today a hamburger costs the equivalent of $170; a night in a hotel is $6,900; and middle-class monthly salaries savaged by inflation are worth about $35.  Food prices more than tripled just in the past month; and the annual inflation rate is 4,505 percent.  One Venezuelan interviewed for theTelegraph article said that he had to spend more than half his monthly income just on toilet tissue.  Socialism has resulted in the Zimbabwe-ization of Venezuela.



The Venezuelan government fails to perform what all governments claim to be their primary responsibility: maintaining law and order in society.  Caracas is now the world’s most violent city in the world according to the Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice, which computes such rankings.



The drinking water in Flint, Michigan is like fresh, Rocky Mountain spring water compared to the drinking water in Venezuela, described by a May 29New York Times article about the country’s “hunger, blackouts, and government shutdown” as “a brownish color” that makes people sick, with many Venezuelans contracting “skin irritations from showering . . .”  One woman is quoted as saying that because she has been showering with this government water “her body is filled with small bubbles and they sting horribly.”



Like all other socialist demagogues, Venezuela’s wealthy, living-lives-of-luxury, socialist political elite blame all the disasters they have created on various bogeymen, from “the American government’s efforts to destabilize the country” (according to the New York Times), to “a drought that has crippled Venezuela’s ability to generate hydroelectric power.”  This last reason is reminiscent of how the Soviets blamed the results of their disastrous policy of socialized agriculture on seventy straight years of “drought.”



Just about anyone who is able to leave Venezuela is doing so.  So far, it’s a much easier task than leaving that other Caribbean socialist “paradise,” Cuba.



Venezuela has joined a very long list of countries whose economies have been utterly destroyed by just a few years of socialism.  Meanwhile, in the U.S. hordes of “millennials,” the first PC generation, a generation that has been indoctrinated since kindergarten in the alleged evils of capitalism and taught to worship Big Government as their savior, are wildly cheering a 75-year-old communist who wants to be president on the promise of making America the next Venezuela.  (Like the Soviet communists who called their government theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics, not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics, I don’t distinguish between “communists” and “socialists”; they’re all the same gang of looters, frauds, demagogues, and tyrants).





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION-PART 1 OF 3~FFRF WANTS CHICAGO HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL FIRED FOR HIS CHRISTIANITY
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION-



PART 1 OF 3



BY DEBRA RAE



SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra280.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







Part 1 -“I’m Secular and I Vote” Campaign



Free thought and pride attract atheists, agnostics, and skeptics to the largest secular association in North America—the non-profit, educational Freedom from Religion Foundation. FFRF Co-President Dan Barker opines, “Much of the movement away from religion in America is being driven by Millennials, many of whom will be voting for the first time this year.”[1] Hence, Parker adds, “We need secular voters to be vocal about their beliefs, or lack thereof, while rejecting efforts to push religious dogma on the nation.”



This, of course, is no small effort. The Foundation boasts 23,500 members, 20 chapters across America, not to mention secular student alliances. Nearly 8,000 secular voters are reaching out to educate the public about their beliefs. FFRF awards thousands of dollars in prizes for winning student essays; and they distribute “I’m Secular and I Vote” buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers, and educational material.[2]



What Exactly is Religion? [3]



To be freed from something requires grasp of what is being discarded. So what exactly is the illusive concept of religion? Surprising to some, whether Judeo-Christian, Marxist-Leninist, secularist, or Islamic, all worldviews by nature are religious. Each defines an ultimate point of reference that dramatically influences every possible discipline from science to the arts, ethics to law, geo-politics to economics. All speak to an ideology, or movement, that offers some overarching approach to comprehend God (god), the world, and man’s relationship to both.



“Freedom from religion” is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another. Allow me to explain. Classical orthodoxy, Christian or Jewish, broadly typifies “religion,” as most perceive it, but so does secular humanism. By definition, religion sports its own distinctive vocabulary, sacred symbolism, grand metanarrative, exclusive truth exercised by faith, code of ethics/morality, creed, rituals, evangelism, and discipleship. Logically, to discard religion is to separate from the above; secularism instead exhibits all of them.



Judicial Acknowledgment



In The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892), the Supreme Court ruled that our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian.[4] In the early sixties, however, two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases made way for secular humanism by giving the proverbial boot to traditional faith (in the form of school prayer and Bible reading). It was then that secular humanism emerged as a non-theistic religion whose organized system of beliefs is upheld devotedly by some 7.3 million humanists, and counting.[5] Both Christianity and secularism have received judicial acknowledgement.



Distinctive Vocabulary



Keep in mind humanism may or may not center on a supernatural being. Cosmic- and secular- humanism both are organized systems of beliefs and rituals upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion. Their relativistic values exalt human worth based on self-determination through reason.



By censoring God-speak and pilfering biblical phraseology, secularists craft their own lexicon. Take the word, “conversion,” meaning “a turning”—whether literally or figuratively, ethically or religiously. In the Bible, conversion is associated with repentance and faith.[6] In the secular world, Harvard Professor Steven Pinker boldly testifies, “I never outgrew my conversion to atheist at thirteen.”[7]



Honorary FFRF Board member Julia Sweeny argues, “How dare the religious use the term ‘born again’?” Sweeney reserves the phrase for fellow freethinkers who, like her, have ostensibly thrown off the shackles of religion. The Greek word for “born again,”[8] used first by Jesus and plagiarized by Sweeny, means “to beget again into a new life.”[9] More specifically, “to be born from above.”












In challenging the phrase “under God,” born-again convert to secularism Mike Newdow complained to the U.S. Supreme Court, “I am an atheist. I don’t believe in God. And every school morning my child is asked to stand up, face that flag, put her hand over her heart, and say that her father is wrong.” Apparently, in Newdow’s world, affirmations other than his own are personally demeaning and, thus, universally offensive. This freethinking father knows best when it comes to a god that, in his view, doesn’t even exist.[10]



Grand Metanarrative (“Big Story”)



Defined by Huston Smith as “the clearest opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos can pour into human existence,” the religion of secularism merges symbolism with mythology and Jungian psychology espousing the “higher self.”[11] By self-identifying as “Mother Earth’s consciousness,” cosmic humanists blur the line between physics and metaphysics. Theirs is a pseudo-Christian patchwork of spirit-ism and avant-garde, “fourth-force” psychology.



For these, all life is energy; composite energy is god; and the promised expectation is “life beyond the grave” by becoming god. Most often by means of meditation, achieving an altered state of consciousness enables the Imperial Self to give way to collectivist spirituality. Cosmic humanists attain to cosmic- or group- consciousness by aligning and then fusing with the universal life force. The spiritual climb upward (evolution from embryo-god to “Christhood” through multiple reincarnations) is one grand story![12]



Secular humanists embrace perhaps an even bigger story by reasoning there once existed absolutely nothing. Nothing happened to that nothing until it magically exploded (for no known reason) and thereby created everything and everywhere. A bunch of the exploded everything unpredictably rearranged itself (again, for no known reason) into self-replicating bits, which (to make a long story short) turned into dinosaurs. This constitutes yet another tall tale, or “big story.”



In comparison, the grand metanarrative of Jews and Christian is this: “In the beginning, God.”[13]



Vision for a Utopian Ideal [14]



Simply put, the overarching vision for a Christian is humanity united with (and conformed into the likeness of) God’s Son, coupled with full restoration of the universe to its rightful order under God the Father.[15] In contrast, evolutionary theory at the epicenter of secularism self-characterizes as an expression of “merciless hate.”[16] By specifically excluding “useless eaters,”[17]“miserable, degraded savages,”[18] and those deemed “unfit and defective,”[19] the progressive utopian ideal sidesteps the Golden Rule[20] and Great Commission.[21]



In the words of the Trilateral Commission’s founding director Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” American writer and editor Whittaker Chambers once fingered communism as the “second oldest religion.”[22]Understand that “non-sustainable non-producers” relegated to the low end of humanity’s totem pole include the elderly, stay-at-home moms, and those incapacitated physically or mentally. In the Marxist paradigm, all human rights are granted, controlled, and/or withdrawn by government consisting of elitists deemed more highly evolved and enlightened than the masses.



Conclusion



Toward developing our thesis (Freedom from religion is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another.), we’ve established that secularism and religion are accompanied by judicial acknowledgement, a distinctive vocabulary, grand metanarrative (“big story”), and vision for an ideal—all of which inform voters and influence the course of a nation.



More to follow in Part 2.



Footnotes:



1. http://ffrf.org/ (Accessed 3 April 2016)2. ‘I’m Secular and I Vote’ nationwide campaign launched by Freedom From Religion Foundation to engage millions of non-religious voters. (Accessed 3 April 2016)3. Scripture describes us as body, soul (i.e., mind/ feelings) and spirit (i.e., that which yearns for, and relates to, God). On the other hand, “religion” generally speaks to ritual—a means by which man seeks to please God and, thus, win over His favor by self-effort. In contrast, Christianity is a loving God’s reaching out to man. “We love Him because He first loved us,” the Bible says. Christ came to “seek and save” the lost, not to reward ritual. Many Christians (myself included) do not identify with being “religious” (representing man’s lame attempts at reaching God). We are, instead, “spiritual” in that we respond to His unconditional favor as we yearn for and relate to God “in spirit and in truth.” The Christian God initiates relationship through His son, Jesus. In a word, it’s all about Him, not human effort, although good works naturally follow faith (James 2:18).4. 143 US 457-458, 465-471, 36L ed 226, United States Supreme Court, 29 February 18925. Walter R. Martin. The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers, 1977). 18-23.6. Acts 3:19 & 26, 11:21, 20:21, 26:207. http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-honorary-board (Accessed 3 April 2016)8. http://biblehub.com/greek/313.htm (Accessed 3 April 2016)9. The classic biblical passage references a conversation Jesus had with a prominent Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, whom Jesus instructed to become “born from above,” John 3:1-21.
10. http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-honorary-board (Accessed 3 April 2016)11. Huston Smith. The Religions of Man (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965).11-12.12. The process of mystical (cosmic) evolution holds promise for humanity to awaken to esoteric knowledge. Presumably multiple reincarnations with upward mobility (called transmigration) provide opportunities needed for the modern mystic to ascend from embryo god to pantheistic oneness with divine essence.13. Genesis 1:114. “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keeps the law, happy is he,” Proverbs 29:18. “Vision” prophecy denotes the revelation of God’s will. Teaching a higher than mere human morality, prophets stood as witnesses to the power of truth. Its absence is marked by confusion, disorder, and rebellion. Uncontrolled, people fall into grievous excesses, which nothing but high principles can restrain (Pulpit Commentary).15. Introduced in Genesis 1:26, the Plan of God destines believers to spiritual maturity, wholeness, and completion (Ep. 4:13) with Christ Himself being formed within yielded vessels (Ga. 4:9) until self-life gives way to the Christ-life; and supernatural works, as His, are accomplished in and through them (Jn. 14:12; Ga. 2:20). Although, in God’s Plan, believers partake of the Divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4), God’s awe-inspiring Deity and humankind’s frail humanity remain indisputably separate. Jesus Christ receives all the glory although He honors His Bride as one whose light is like unto a stone most precious (Re. 21:11). Indeed His Name will be in their foreheads, describing well the singularly focused thought life of His devoted, loving Bride (Re. 22: 4), “whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21).16. In a 1905 speech, the great statesman, William Jennings Bryan claimed “the Darwinian Theory represents man reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate, the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.”17. Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger presumed blacks, immigrants, and indigents to be “useless eaters,” “…human weeds,” and “reckless breeders,” “spawning … human beings who never should have been born,” Pivot of Civilization.18. On 17 December 1832, as part of his world tour aboard H.M.S. Beagle, Charles Darwin arrived in Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost tip of South America. Here he got his first view of the native inhabitants, whom he described as “miserable degraded savages,” a phrase he repeated often in his journal concerning these people. (Accessed 29 January 2013)
19. Dean Pernkopf (“National Socialism and Science”) used the phrase, “unfit and defective,” while addressing university faculty and students of Vienna, stronghold of the new Reich (from selected essays of Gerald Weissmann, 1998).
20. Luke 6:31—“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”
21. Mark 16:15—“And he said to them, ‘Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel (good news) to every creature.’”
22. Animal Farm Revisited with “Heavy 100” Radio Talk Host, Chuck Morse, on TRUTH Talk Beyond the Sound Bite with Debra Rae. (5 April 2016).

______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

http://christiannews.net/2016/05/31/atheist-activist-group-wants-illinois-principal-fired-for-promoting-christianity-to-students/

_________________________________________________




FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
PART 2 of 3



SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra281.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







“I’m Secular and I Vote” Campaign



Any religion, by definition, sports its own distinctive vocabulary, sacred symbolism, grand meta narrative, exclusive truth exercised by faith, code of ethics/morality, creed, rituals, evangelism, and discipleship. As is true with any worldview, secularism by nature is a religion. Logically, to discard religion is to separate from the above, but secularism instead exhibits them all. Hence, “freedom from religion” is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another.



In Part 1, we established that judicial acknowledgement, a distinctive vocabulary, grand metanarrative, and vision for the ideal accompany secularism and religion. All inform voters and influence the course of a nation.



The late journalist Christopher Hitchens reasoned, “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”[1] Of course, one could counter, “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all secularists (or progressives) can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” But I digress.



Belief Claiming Exclusive Truth



Naturalists reproach biblical apologists for fortifying dogma by inserting “the God of the gaps”; however, in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, their hero Charles Darwin admitted, “Imagination must fill up very wide blanks.” Despite these blanks, naturalists embrace “settled science” as exclusive truth.
Having studied under the famous scholar, Gamaliel, the Apostle Paul had legitimate claim to knowledge of truth.



Because experience shows God’s unfailing strength as perfected in weakness, Paul deemed God’s grace to be sufficient and chose wisely to “boast” in his own weaknesses so that “the power of Christ might rest upon him.”[2] In Darwin’s world, to the contrary, the weakest links are expunged as “maladjusted morons and misfits.”[3] In shunning lesser human specimens, secular elitists worship at their own makeshift altar of exclusivity.



• Exclusive Truth: Settled Science



Mind you, Darwin hated his time at school and applied himself minimally. He left Edinburgh without a degree; and, at Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he studied theology, he earned what was regarded as an “ordinary” degree. Darwin’s body of work was not wholly original, as one might expect. Instead, its borrowed tenets were lifted from a poem written by Charles’ grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin. The latter practiced an 18th-century pseudo-science (Galvanism) that involved running electrical currents through corpses of dead animals to bring them back to life.



Both wellborn-and-bred British elitists of their day, forward-thinking cousins Darwin and Galton identified with the dark side of the Enlightenment. Both rejected democratic elements, but some semblance of science suited their common cause.[4] Darwin’s legendary treatise, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, filled the bill nicely. In 1993, a number of intellectually dissatisfied scientists representing a variety of disciplines took a fresh look at Darwinism in light of ever exploding scientific knowledge. Unlike Darwin, well-studied, degreed, and highly decorated scientists found irrefutable evidence for Intelligent Design.







• Accepted by Faith



FFRF professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., authored, Why Evolution is True. For Darwin’s theory to fly, faith in random genetic changes, at every turn, must provide advantage in an organism’s struggle to survive. This is not only highly improbable; it’s impossible. Even the evolutionary apologist British zoologist Julian Huxley ceded that a mutation signifies abnormality, not evolutionary advancement. Students of Darwinian thought are expected to overlook the fact that distinctive human attributes (i.e., language, posture/gait, moral/religious sensibilities, art/music appreciation) are not explicable by variations—i.e., multiple mutations or genetic shuffling. If it isn’t observable, repeatable, and measurable, and as long as scientists ask questions and apply the scientific method, science is not settled. My point? Evolutionary theory is just that: a theory.



Given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Irreducible Complexity, and Law of Mutation, chance takes even more faith to believe than creation by an Intelligent Designer of an astonishingly ordered universe! Professor Hoyle compared the Darwinian process to the unlikelihood of a tornado’s sweeping through a junkyard and thereby producing a Boeing 747 from materials therein! Odds of this ever happening are astronomical.



Positive Impact on Society



Wrongly so, freethinkers credit persons unconstrained by religion with most social and moral progress throughout the history of Western civilization. Marketed to appeal to man’s best intentions (the common good, survival, advanced societies), evolutionary thought instead perpetuates a host of societal ills. Whether by abortion, infanticide, forced sterilization, euthanasia, or assisted suicide, “useless eaters” are targeted for extinction; and “the unfit” remain subject to human experimentalism and pharmacological abuse.[5]



Darwin’s theory validated his “good old boys” network of British elitists; and, arguably, it spawned socio-political atrocities of monumental proportion. His flawed line of secularist, elitist thinking is precisely what spawned slavery, segregation, racist immigration laws (to turn away post-war Jewish refugees), the infamous Tuskegee Project, and application of the “one-drop rule” to ensure racial purity/ hygiene. Progress? Positive impact on society? I think not.[6]



On the other hand, Dr. James Allan Francis eloquently explained, “Today Jesus is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind’s progress. All the armies that have ever marched, all the navies that have ever sailed, all the parliaments that have ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned—put together—have not affected the life of mankind on earth as powerfully as that one solitary life.”[7]







Sacred Symbolism



FFRF lawyers defend distribution of tracts (called “non-tracts” in the secularist’s lexicon) and activity books on display tables in public schools. Purported advocates of separation between church and state, secularists in Orlando and Denver nonetheless display pamphlets that address sex in the Bible and problems with the Ten Commandments (you know, religion). Foundation co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor assures authorities that the activity book for middle- and high school- students teaches “kindness” and, if only by limiting the satanic theme to symbols in drawings, “the basic morals that we all agree on.”[8]



Occult symbolism gets a pass, but not prayer emojis. Recently, FFRF called on Apple CEO Tim Cook to remove all prayer emojis (symbols of cruel and unusual proselytizing) from iPhones and other devices. The Foundation’s Co-President Dan Barker warns, “Apple may not be afraid of the FBI, but they should be afraid of the millions of secular consumers who can’t stand these emojis.”[9]



Code of Ethics/Morality



Although Paul Kurtz insists that the Humanist Manifesto is committed to reason, science, and democracy, secular humanism is really secular de-humanism. After all, Kurtz’s worldview recognizes no mandate to celebrate, facilitate, or protect life. Instead, it advances an individual’s right to “die with dignity”—whether by euthanasia or suicide. Because secularists perceive humans as mere products of time and chance, it stands to reason that life is devoid of elevated meaning. Darwinian theory defers to the paramount principle that “ends justify means.”



Freethinking poet-historian Jennifer Michael Hecht reasons, “If there is no god — and there isn’t — then we [humans] made up morality. And I’m very impressed.” Claim to have created from nothing something that all can agree upon is indeed impressive—but only as a feat of fancy (a miracle, if you will). In reality, despite secular claims, basic morals that “we all agree on” don’t exist.



Creed (Dogma) and Catechism



Columnist for The Nation, Katha Pollitt regularly and energetically proclaims the atheist’s creed, “There is no God.” In accordance with this creed, secularists must transcend “inflexible moral and religious ideologies.” True to the secular catechism, believers celebrate, practice, and reward “plain speaking” on the shortcomings of religion. Accordingly, at the FFRF 39th annual convention in Pittsburgh (October 2016), theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss will be awarded the Emperor Has No Clothes Award.[10]



The Humanist Manifesto urges “people of good will” to work together toward “human ends,” but notable secularist, Oxford professor emeritus Richard Dawkins, characterizes the God of the Old Testament as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction.” While Dawkins claims for himself the right to freedom from offense, he denies Christians and Jews the same courtesy.



Conclusion



Both worldviews, secularism and religion, hold claim to exclusive truth accepted by faith, a creed (dogma), and sacred symbolism. Exercising an identified code of ethics and morality, each claims to impact society positively. To insist that secularism frees one from religion is incredulous; nonetheless, the Freedom From Religion Foundation accepts the one as truth, the other as fancy.



More to follow in Part 3



Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3,



© 2016 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved



Footnotes:



1. (Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 24) and retrieved 29 January 2013. 2. 2 Corinthians 12:9—“And he said unto me, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee’: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”3. During the 1960 Presidential campaign, Margaret Sanger referred to Catholics as “black moles invading our buildings of democracy.” Sanger called for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted” and for the sterilization of races that she deemed to be genetically inferior (i.e., blacks).4. Chuck Morse. The Monkey Trial: Evolutionary Politics in the Post-Modern Age. (Boston: City Metro Enterprises, 2013).5. In 1961, Aldous Huxley, an important evolutionary thinker, lectured at the California Medical School in San Francisco where he stated: “And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. As part of a plan to help pilots, sailors, and infantry troops become capable of superhuman performance, many German soldiers were high on Pervitin (speed) when they went into battle. However, Nazis failed to monitor side effects. (Accessed 29 January 2013). 6. Angelo M. Codevilla. The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It (New York: Beaufort Books, 2010), 26-51.7. http://www.changinglives.org.au/solitary-life.html (Accessed 9 April 2016)8. Colleen Slevin, Associated Press. “Satanic Book, Bible Sex Tracts Provided at Colorado Schools” (Seattle: The Seattle Times, 2 April 2016). News A5. 9. FFRF calls on Apple to immediately remove prayer emojis from all iPhones.(Accessed 9 April 2016)
10. http://ffrf.org/outreach/convention (Accessed 9 April 2016)

______________________________________________________

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
PART 3 of 3



“I’m Secular and I Vote” Campaign



“Freedom from religion” is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another. Secularism and religion sport their own distinctive vocabulary, sacred symbolism, grand metanarrative, exclusive truth exercised by faith, code of ethics/morality, creed, rituals, evangelism, and discipleship. Logically, to discard religion is to separate from all of the above, but secularism instead exhibits them.



Rituals (Superstition, De-baptism, Confirmation, Invocations and Prayer)
“Luck” smacks of superstition. Even so, Freedom from Religion Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor is named as one of the “lucky” eighteen percent of fellow members who grew up freethinking. As such, she was “spared baptism by water, fire or Sunday school.” Officially renouncing the primitive rite of baptism to which “the luckless” were so cruelly subjected, participants exchange creeds, dogmas, and alleged superstitions of one belief system with those of another. This they do by obtaining genuine De-Baptismal Certificates. (No joke!)



Extracting themselves from any claims of religious affiliation or membership based on baptismal records, secularists join and pay dues (i.e., tithes and offerings) to the fellowship of Freedom from Religion. Congregants aggressively challenge prayer spaces at the University of Iowa, for example; however, following the Supreme Court’s injudicious decision “blessing” sectarian prayer, the Foundation rewards freethinkers who ask for equal time to give secular invocations.[1]



• Celebratory Music Ministry



At the Reason Rally June 2016, celebration of secularism at the Lincoln Memorial will be paired with entertainment and parties that draw hand-clapping, arm raising, closed-eyes enthusiasts eager to sway to the beat of hip-hop artist Baba Brinkman, songwriter-artist Sophia Kameron, and Keith Lowell Jensen of Atheist Christmas fame. This is one Camp Meeting secularists don’t want to miss![2]



Discipleship



In accord with the Bible, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”[3] Even as Christians serve God, secularists are busy about the work of their master, mammon—this, by vigorously contesting what they view as unsavory practices in the public forum and bad legislation.[4]



• Youth Groups



As churches target youth, so do secularists. Last year Thomas Sheedy served as event organizer for the Long Island Atheists (i.e., youth ministry). Furthermore, this high school senior was granted a student activist award of $5,000 for founding the Secular Student Alliance at Ward Melville High School in East Setauket, New York. Fifty-one students (i.e., converts) expressed interest, a teacher heeded the call to become their adviser (i.e., pastor-teacher), and goals were set (i.e., vision).







Giving Testimony; Evangelism with Promise of “A More Excellent Way” [5]



To the biblical phrase, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” secularists add, “But the wise person says it out loud.”[6] Through a television ad, for example, Ron Reagan describes himself as “an unabashed atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.” In a newspaper article about his non belief, honorary FFRF Board member Daniel C. Dennett wrote, “I’ve come to realize it’s time to sound the alarm.” Heeding the call, evangelists Richard Dawkins, Mike Newdow, and Steven Pinker promote non-theism as their “critical work.”



What better way to evangelize than by campaigning through FFRF’s “I’m Secular and I Vote” Campaign? In coordination with other major free thought associations, chapters across the nation spread the word via paid digital media, national TV ads, and efforts to mobilize students on college campuses.[7]



Tax Deductible Financial Giving



FFRF is a member of Atheist Alliance International, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Richard Dawkins Non-Believers Giving Aid. As is the case with churches and their ministries, all dues and donations on behalf of “nonbelief relief” are tax-deductible.



Persecution Assuaged by Promise of a Sweet By and By



In Sheedy’s view, “Christians will not find a speck of dust on our nation’s soil where they are persecuted as a group.” Many Christians (myself included) disagree.[8] Nonetheless, having abandoned his childhood indoctrination into Roman Catholicism, Sheedy sought legal aid for his struggles. In his view, every state in the country is under threat of scorn from whom he characterizes as “the losing majority.”



• Heaven/Hell





Secularists reference their own versions of heaven and hell. Indeed, FFRF conventions welcome “hell-bound atheists.” In musing about “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” freethinking lyricist Yip Harburg wishes upon a star (i.e., prays). Waking up in some ethereal place where clouds are far behind him, Yip’s troubles melt like lemon drops (i.e., heaven).[9]



Conclusion



For secularists to declare freedom from religion is folly because humanism (whether secular or cosmic) fully qualifies as a religion. As the saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” In America, folks are free to follow the dictates of conscience. When secularists demand a voice in the public arena, they are exercising their First Amendment right. The same right applies to Jews and Christians.



In the words of Coretta Scott King, “I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.”[10] Accordingly, Rosa Parks hoped to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free so others would be free as well.[11] For secularists to deny fellow religionists right to “free exercise” is to undercut and possibly even forfeit their own right. George Washington warned, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[12] A word to the wise: Especially in an election year, even self-serving secularists do well to champion the First Amendment right for all Americans.



Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3,



© 2016 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved



Footnotes:



1. Secular group challenges prayer spaces at UI (Accessed 9 April 2016)2. http://www.reasonrally.org/ (Accessed 9 April 2016)3. Matthew 6:24—“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”4. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America (15 December 1791)5. 1 Corinthians 12:31—“ But covet earnestly the best gifts; and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.”6. Psalm 14:1, 53:1—“The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt; they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.” (Curiously, the Hebrew words rendered fool in the book of Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.)7. ‘I’m Secular and I Vote’ nationwide campaign launched by Freedom From Religion Foundation to engage millions of non-religious voters (Accessed 9April 2016)8. Persecution of Christians in America: It’s Not Just ‘Over There’ (Accessed 11 April 2016)9. Judy Garland Lyrics (Accessed 9 April 2016)
10. Matching Quotes (Accessed 12 April 2016)11. Matching Quotes (Accessed 12 April 2016)12. Matching Quotes (Accessed 12 April 2016)





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
VALERIE JARRETT: “OBAMA IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

VALERIE JARRETT: “OBAMA IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY”



Valerie Jarrett says after leaving the White House (assuming he even leaves the White House at all), President Obama is going to stay in Washington.



BY MICHAEL DEPINTO



SEE: http://freedomoutpost.com/valerie-jarrett-obama-is-not-going-anywhere-after-his-presidency-video/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





Wait a second… let me get this straight… Valerie Jarrett says after leaving the White House (assuming he even leaves the White House at all), President Obama is going to stay in Washington, but he’ll, “be the former president, he’ll be a citizen just like everybody else, and as such he’ll behave accordingly. Of that, I’m sure.” Are we talking about same President Obama here? Are we talking about the one who would be wise to go straight to the airport after leaving the White House (again, assuming he leaves in the first place), and flee the country before being arrested on charges of treason? What about the same President who has had the Democrats working on various legislation for years now designed to lower the potential penalty for anyone getting caught committing treason?



Speaking of treason and fleeing the country, despite the information coming from Socha Faal, an alleged “disinformation agent,” there have been reports that Obama bought for a flight to the mansion he allegedly purchased a mansion in the NON EXTRADITION country of Dubai for $4.9 million dollars by way of the Podesta Group (John Pedesta was former Counselor to President Obama)? Non extradition? country? Really?



PARDON ME IF I CALL BS ON OBAMA KEEPING A LOW PROFILE…



HERE’S WHY:







Is Valerie Jarrett talking about the same President Obama who has been caught privately campaigning for a very big job for after his alleged term? As you’ll learn in the video below that comes from a post titled:Obama Plotting For King of the World, it is well known that Obama has been privately campaigning for the “King of the World” job, as the U.N. General Secretary. The same video also mentions one man standing in Obama’s way for the job, one who plans to fight him pretty hard too if his wife wins the White House; the other person who wants the role of U.N. General Secretary is none other than Bill Clinton.







Is Valerie Jarrett talking about the same President who is featured in a video below lying to the American people like a raging sociopath as many as 65 separate times? By the way, the video was made back in 2013, so just imagine how many more lies we could add to the video now. It’s amazing… Nixon lied, was Impeached, and forced to resign. George H.W. Bush essentially did not get re-elected over when he lied and said, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” and there’s Obama… a raging sociopath who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him most days. Wow. The following video includes 65 instances of Obama looking right into the camera and telling bold faced lie after bold faced lie…







Is Valerie Jarrett talking about the same President whose attorneys were just kicked out of federal court earlier this week for lying as many as four separate times to a federal judge? In reference to the behavior of the attorneys REPRESENTING Obama in his illegal amnesty Executive Order, the judge said the attorneys were:



“intentionally deceptive,” clearly part of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct,” and their misconduct was so “serious and material…” that they aren’t allowed back in federal court until they’ve taken a course on legal ethics? 



Think about that for a minute. Imagine you’re an attorney representing Obama in federal court on something as important to Obama as his unconstitutional Executive Order on illegal amnesty. Do you honestly believe the attorneys working on that would so much as sneeze without Obama’s ok in advance when it comes to anything as important to him as his illegal amnesty Executive Order? PLEASE! Give me a break!



Despite all that, if you doubt the sincerity of Valerie Jarrett or Obama publicly, you’ll be called the crazy one, or you’ll probably be labeled a racist. Do you know who will sincerely believes them? The same idiots that think what “Democratic Socialism” did to Venezuela, won’t do the same thing anywhere else it’s tried. As if the last 7+ years haven’t proven that Socialism DOES NOT WORK, there is some GREAT video in an earlier post titled, Human De-Evolution: When Radical Leftists Are Given Keys to the Kingdom. The same imbeciles who will be voting for Hillary or for Bernie, will be doing so because they actually are gullible enough to believe the line:



“But baby… it’ll be different this time… I swear…” 



Anyone voting for Hillary or Bernie makes the conscious decision to believe the NONSENSE they are spoon fed to them by the media and other known liars, despite the fact that EVERYWHERE socialistic ideas have ever been tried, they result in EXACTLY what we see in Venezuela: people starving to death, rampant crime, and thousands, if not MILLIONS dead. Sounds like it’s worth the risk right? Morons. THAT is who believes Valerie Jarrett. No one else.






Valerie Jarrett told CBS’s Norah O’Donnell Barack Obama is staying in Washington after he leaves the White House in January, the soon-to-be-former president will emulate his predecessors in keeping a lower profile in terms of weighing in on issues of presidential importance.



In a clip from a forthcoming “60 Minutes” story aired Friday on “CBS This Morning,” senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was asked by Norah O’Donnell what it would be like to have the former president and his successor living in the same city.



“President Obama will be the former president. And he’ll be a citizen just like everybody else. And he’ll behave accordingly. Of that, I’m sure,” Jarrett said.












After eight years in the White House, the only problem when Obama leaves will be that he can still do damage to the country — or even the world — after he’s ceased residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.



After all, some on the liberal side have put Obama forward as a possible secretary general of the United Nations or (even worse) a Supreme Court justice.



Either one of those thoughts are the kind of nightmares that have me waking up in the middle of the night.



It’s an unusual occurrence that we get some good news from Valerie Jarrett, but the top Obama adviser said in an interview with “60 Minutes” (via The Hill) that will be aired Sunday that Obama will keep a low profile after leaving office.



“President Obama will be the former president, and he will be a citizen just like everybody else, and he will behave accordingly, of that I’m sure,” Jarrett said.



“One of the things I would compliment President Bush for — and not just President Bush, but several members of his team as well, who have said to me, ‘We had our eight years and now we owe you silence,’” Jarrett added.



“And I think that’s the way the president will behave in terms of Washington. But does that mean that he has a platform on which he can do great good around our country and around the world? Sure. But he will leave being the president to the new president.”



Excuse me for a sec, I’m just going to go play the “Hallelujah Chorus” from Handel’s “Messiah” about two or three or 20 times in a row on iTunes.



The thought of the most unconstitutional president in history presiding over the Constitution — a document he doesn’t even care about —  on the Supreme Court was too much to bear. The idea of a president who constantly apologizes for our country being the secretary general of the U.N. is worse.



A private citizen? That I could get used to — so long as it’s a very quiet private citizen.













			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
PATRIOTS OBSERVE MEMORIAL DAY~REMEMBER THE SACRIFICES OF VETERANS~BUT V.A. SECRETARY INSULTS VETERANS~VETERAN REPORTER ATTACKED AT VIETNAM MEMORIAL
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

Trump Demands Campaign Rally Must Open With 
The National Anthem



Published on May 25, 2016





Opening a campaign rally in Anaheim, California, Donald Trump claimed he was told there was “no time” for the National Anthem. He said to the crowd, “Yes, there is.”










                                  

TRUMP SAYS COUNTRY COMES BEFORE TV CAMERAS

by KELLEIGH NELSON

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh312.htm;


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:








Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. —Zell Miller



National Anthem Shall Be Sung!



Last Wednesday at a campaign rally in Anaheim, California, when he arrived Donald Trump was told that they would not be singing the National Anthem as was originally planned and as is customary. The singer was there, in fact he spoke with the woman who was supposed to sing for the crowd and she told him that the reason had something to do with television cameras. That’s no reason in Trump’s book.



Trump started his speech by saying, “Here’s what happened. I got here, and they said to me, ‘We don’t have time for the National Anthem.’ And I said, ‘Yes we do!’ We have time for the National Anthem, right?” So he asked Sherry Wilkins to come up and sing the National Anthem, and she did a beautiful job of it. This is the kind of president we need, a real patriot who is proud to be an American.



Decoration Day, aka Memorial Day



There are only two holidays a year that bring me to tears. The first is Decoration Day (now Memorial Day) and the second is Independence Day, July 4th. A few years ago, I wrote an article entitled Real Americans. I told of the loss and heartbreak I felt when I saw the flags waving and heard the firecrackers. The loss of what we once were, and what we have become, is overwhelming. The same feeling is present with Decoration Day.



This weekend we celebrate those who have died for this country, those who gave all for freedom and liberty. Decoration Day started with a commemoration to the fallen Union soldiers of the Civil War. In the south, southern ladies' groups commemorated the fallen on different days than the holiday of the north. However, by the 20th century, all American soldiers who had fallen in war were remembered on the last Monday in May, although originally May 30th. Decoration Day meant placing flowers on the graves of the fallen. Today, those who know the true meaning of the holiday visit the cemeteries not only to decorate the graves of fallen American soldiers, as well as those who served our country, but also to remember their deceased ancestors.



Our Flag Honors the Fallen



The Memorial Day flag is to be raised briskly to the top of the pole at dawn and then lowered to half-mast until noon. This is done in remembrance. At noon, the flag is again raised to the top of the pole for the remainder of the day.



As a youngster, I always went with my grandparents to the cemetery to clean up the grave sites, place flowers, and sit a spell to remember those we lost. It was a quiet day, one that was somewhat solemn.



Today, this holiday of commemoration has become one of barbeques, picnics, baseball and swimming. It no longer is a day of solemn remembrance of our nation's loss. When I think of all those who have served, I remember those in my own dear family, and the losses.



Grief



On these holidays, I grieve. I grieve for what we've lost, what we were, what we once had, and what we've now become. I grieve for my nation, for her soul, and for her people who are too busy watching Dancing with the Stars and Survivor to see what has happened to our beloved country. I grieve because we've thrown God out of every facet of American society. I grieve because we think nothing of murdering 60 million babies in their mothers’ wombs. I grieve because I see the losses. I grieve because I know too much, and I grieve because so few are fighting to save her...our once great America and her God-given freedoms. I grieve, I mourn, and I weep, and I'm still fighting to save her. Dear God in heaven, I grieve, but…. this year...



This Year is Different



This year, for the first time in 53 years, we have hope. That hope has come to us in the form of a billionaire businessman whose plain spoken, shoot from the hip comments and policies have awakened the masses who love this country. This year, the veterans know the GOP presumptive nominee is on their side. This year, we look forward to turning the tide back to the great America we once knew. This year, we know our candidate hears us. This year we have someone who insists the National Anthem be sung at all his rallies! This year we have someone who resonates with the masses, and God willing, this year we’ll have a newly elected President who loves America and her people. Thank you Donald J. Trump for giving us renewed hope.



[P.S. In order to help Mr. Trump we need to increase the hits to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, etc.) and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]



_______________________________________________________





Memorial Day, Remember These Fallen Heroes – Obama, Don’t Apologize for Them



While President Obama traipses around the world apologizing for the greatest force for good in the history of the world, I thought it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the American war heroes who fought and died in the cause of freedom across the world.



BY PAMELA GELLER



SEE: http://freedomoutpost.com/memorial-day-remember-these-fallen-heroes-obama-dont-apologize-for-them/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







While President Obama traipses around the world apologizing for the greatest force for good in the history of the world, I thought it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the American war heroes who fought and died in the cause of freedom across the world.







The Lorraine American Cemetery and Memorial is located just outside of Saint-Avold, Moselle, France. It covers 113.5 acres (0.459 km2) and contains 10,489 graves; the largest number of graves of any American World War II cemetery in Europe. Those interred died mostly in the autumn of 1944 during the Drive to the Siegfried Line and were mainly part of the U.S. Third and Seventh Armies.







The Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial is a 130.5-acre (0.528 km2) World War I cemetery in France. It is located east of the village of Romagne-sous-Montfaucon in Meuse. The cemetery contains the largest number of American military dead in Europe (14,246), most of whom lost their lives during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.







The Cambridge American Cemetery in Cambridge, England has approximately 3,812 graves of servicemen, including airmen who died over Europe and sailors from North Atlantic convoys.







The Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial is a 48.6-acre (19.7 ha) site which rests on a plateau 100 feet (30 m) above the Moselle River in the foothills of the Vosges Mountains in Dinozé, France. It contains the graves of 5,255 United States’ military dead, most of whom lost their lives in the campaigns across northeastern France to the Rhine and beyond into Germany during World War II.







The Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial occupies a six-acre site which lies on the southeast edge of the town of Waregem, Belgium. At this peaceful location rest 368 American military Dead, most of whom gave their lives in liberating Belgium in World War I.







The The Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery and Memorial lies approximately 30 kilometers east of Liège, Belgium and contains the graves of 7,992 members of the American military who died in World War II. It is one of three American war cemeteries in Belgium.



The The Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery and Memorial lies approximately 30 kilometers east of Liège, Belgium and contains the graves of 7,992 members of the American military who died in World War II. It is one of three American war cemeteries in Belgium.



The Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial is located in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. The cemetery, which is 50.5 acres (204,000 m2) in extent contains the remains of 5,076 American service members. On 22 occasions two brothers rest side-by-side in adjacent graves. Most of the interred died during the Battle of the Bulge which was fought nearby in winter 1944/spring 1945.







The Manila American Cemetery and Memorial is located in in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City in Metro Manila, Philippines. The cemetery, 152 acres (0.62 km2) or 615,000 square metres in area, is located on a prominent plateau, visible at a distance from the east, south and west. With a total of 17,206 graves, it is the largest cemetery in the Pacific for U.S. personnel killed during World War II, and also holds war dead from the Philippines and other allied nations. Many of the personnel whose remains are interred or represented were killed in New Guinea, or during the Battle of the Philippines (1941-42) or the Allied recapture of the islands.







At the Mexico City National Cemetery there are 750 American soldiers buried that were killed during the Mexican War. Their remains were gathered in 1851, four years after the war, and buried in a common grave at this cemetery. They were not identified so they are classified as unknown soldiers. In addition there are eight veterans of the Mexican War buried at this cemetery.







The Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial is a World War II cemetery which lies in the village of Margraten six miles east of Maastricht, in the most southern part of The Netherlands. The walls on either side of the Court of Honor contain the Tablets of the Missing on which are recorded the names of 1,722 American missing who gave their lives in the service of their country and who rest in unknown graves. Beyond the chapel and tower is the burial area which is divided into sixteen plots. Here rest 8,301 American dead, most of whom lost their lives nearby.







The Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial is a World War II cemetery and memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, Normandy, France, that honors American soldiers who died in Europe during World War II. The cemetery is located on a bluff overlooking Omaha Beach (one of the landing beaches of the Normandy Invasion) and the English Channel. It covers 172 acres (70 ha), and contains the remains of 9,387 American military dead, most of whom were killed during the invasion of Normandy and ensuing military operations in World War II. Included are graves of Army Air Force crews shot down over France as early as 1942.











The Rhone American Cemetery and Memorial is an American war cemetery in Southern France, memorializing 861 American soldiers and mariners who died in Second World War operations in that area. The cemetery covers 12 acres (49,000 m2) within the city of Draguignan. The cemetery is named for the Rhone river and its watershed, where most of those interred fought and died. Those interred were mainly part of the U.S. Seventh Army, in particular the US 45th Infantry Division, the US 36th Infantry Division, and the US 3rd Infantry Division. They died mostly in the summer of 1944 during Operation Dragoon, the Allied invasion of Southern France from the Mediterranean, which followed the Allied invasion of Normandy.







The Sicily-Rome American Cemetery and Memorial lies at the north edge of the town of Nettuno, Italy, which is immediately east of Anzio, 38 miles south of Rome. The cemetery covers 77 acres, rising in a gentle slope from a broad pool with an island and cenotaph flanked by groups of Italian cypress trees. Beyond the pool is the immense field of headstones of 7,861 of American military war dead, arranged in gentle arcs on broad green lawns beneath rows of Roman pines. The majority of these men died in the liberation of Sicily (July 10 to August 17, 1943); in the landings in the Salerno Area (September 9, 1943) and the heavy fighting northward; in the landings at Anzio Beach and expansion of the beachhead (January 22, 1944 to May 1944); and in air and naval support in the regions.







The Somme American Cemetery and Memorial in France is sited in the commune of Bony, on a gentle slope typical of the open, rolling Picardy countryside, in northern France. The 14.3-acre (58,000 m2) cemetery contains the graves of 1,844 of the United States’ military dead from World War I. Most lost their lives while serving in American units attached to the British Army, or in operations near Cantigny.







The St. Mihiel American Cemetery and Memorial in France, 40.5 acres (164,000 m2) in extent, contains the graves of 4,153 of American military dead from World War I. The majority of these died in the offensive that resulted in the reduction of the St. Mihiel salient that threatened Paris.







The Suresnes American Cemetery and Memorial is a United States military cemetery in the Suresnes (Hauts-de-Seine), France. It is located in a suburb of Paris on the southeastern slope of the hill below Fort Mont Valerien. Originally a World War I cemetery, it now shelters the remains of U.S. dead of both wars. The 7.5-acre (30,000 m2) cemetery contains the remains of 1,541 Americans who died in World War I and 24 Unknown dead of World War II. Bronze tablets on the walls of the chapel record the names of 974 World War I missing. Rosettes mark the names of those since recovered and identified.







American Cemetery on Guadalcanal located near Lunga Point

Credit: US Army Date: 1945







The late US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens leads a delegation from the US.S. Embassy at the graves of the men of the USS Intrepid at Old Protestant Cemetery …



pacific wrecks





American war dead buried in Tripoli, Libya. They were killed in 1804 during the first foreign war, the first Barbary war, Islam’s first war on the US (not just one but two wars, the first and second Barbary war). They should be exhumed and brought home a/s/a/p.



The oldest military monument in the U.S., the Tripoli Monument, was commissioned to honor the heroes of from the age of sail. The monument was at the Washington Navy Yard until 1831 when it was moved to the west lawn of the Capitol. In 1860, the monument was moved again to its current site at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. (source)







US memorial on the Scottish Isle of Islay. It pays tribute to the US servicemen. The Kilchoman Military Cemetery contains 74 graves; 71 from the Otranto (of whom 43 remain unidentified) and 3 other casualties brought from elsewhere. The grave slabs are all similar except the one of Captain Ernest George Davidson, the captain of H.M.S. Otranto, which stands out from the rest. Shortly after the sinking of the Otranto the remains of American Troops were buried here as well but their bodies were later repatriated or reburied in the American military cemetery at Brookwood in Surrey.



US memorial on the Scottish Isle of Islay. It pays tribute to the US servicemen. The Kilchoman Military Cemetery contains 74 graves; 71 from the Otranto (of whom 43 remain unidentified) and 3 other casualties brought from elsewhere. The grave slabs are all similar except the one of Captain Ernest George Davidson, the captain of H.M.S. Otranto, which stands out from the rest. Shortly after the sinking of the Otranto the remains of American Troops were buried here as well but their bodies were later repatriated or reburied in the American military cemetery at Brookwood in Surrey.



SEE COMPLETE LIST OF AMERICAN CEMETERIES ON ORIGINAL POST BY P. GELLER



__________________________________________________________________













VIDEOS:











Published on May 23, 2016





London Center for Policy Research Fellow Jessie Jane Duff and CVA Senior Military Advisor Amber Smith weigh in on Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald’s comments comparing veterans waiting for care to lines at Disney.












                                 



Published on May 23, 2016





Secretary of Veterans Affairs Bob McDonald is on damage control after comparing VA wait times to waiting in line for a ride at Disney. President Obama brought in McDonald in 2014 to fix wait times, but the problems have continued. 













Insulting VA Secretary Compares Veterans’ Waits for Care to Ride Waits at Disney



BY MORGAN CHALFANT



SEE: http://freebeacon.com/issues/va-secretary-says-agency-doesnt-need-measure-waits-disney-doesnt/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:









The top official at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs indicated that the agency should not use the time that veterans wait for medical care as a metric of success because Disney does not measure wait times for theme park rides.



The Washington Examiner first reported that VA Secretary Robert McDonald made the comments during a breakfast meeting with journalists on Monday, more than two years after the agency faced national scrutiny when staffers were found concealing veterans’ wait times using secret lists.



“When you go to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what’s important? What’s important is, what’s your satisfaction with the experience?” McDonald said during the Christian Science Monitor event on Monday. “And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure.”



McDonald was tapped by President Obama to lead the agency after Eric Shinseki resigned from his post as VA secretary following the wait list scandal in 2014. Dozens of veterans are believed to have died waiting for care at the Phoenix VA hospital system, from where the secret wait lists first emerged.








Wait times at the VA have endured renewed scrutiny after reports have shown persisting problems at agency hospitals despite efforts to improve veterans’ care. A Government Accountability Office report released last month found that the VA lacks sufficient oversight to ensure that veterans receive timely care.



In the face of questions about veterans’ waits for care and the VA’s lack of transparency surrounding the matter, McDonald said Monday that most veterans say they are satisfied with care at the VA and that the average time a veteran waits for care is only days.



A leading official at a veterans group advocating for reform at the VA said that McDonald should be “ashamed” of the Disney comments and that they warrant a public apology.



“This statement from Secretary McDonald isn’t just offensive–it also shows that he doesn’t even view long wait times and secret wait lists as real problems in need of a fix,” Dan Caldwell, vice president for legislative and political action at Concerned Veterans for America, said.



“To compare veterans’ experiences waiting weeks and months for care to tourists waiting in line to see Mickey Mouse demonstrates just how out of touch the secretary is with the struggles many veterans deal with while waiting for care at the VA.”



_______________________________________________________



THE REACTIONS, THE OUTRAGE:



Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I’m “pissed” off by VA Secretary











Senator Blunt: VA secretary should resign











Ryan slams VA Secretary over ‘Disney’ comments
“THIS IS NOT WONDERLAND”
“THIS IS NOT MAKE BELIEVE”











Refuses to Apologize


                                 



_____________________________________________________________







Liberal Trolls Veteran Reporter At Vietnam Memorial



Published on May 29, 2016





While shooting a video outside the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C., INFOWARS Reporter, Joe Biggs, is harassed by a social justice warrior. After being shot down on the first take, the passive trendy with a temper tries to ruin two more takes before someone else in the crowd watching tells him to to shut up!











LIBERALS ATTACK, DEFACE WAR MEMORIALS IN MANY PLACES



Published on May 30, 2016





Joe Biggs joins us via Skype from D.C. He starts by discussing the disgraceful memorial day news on Drudge, a veteran attacked with his oxygen tank, memorials defaced, etc. Memorial day is not about the politics of war, it’s about the personal decision that our bravest men and women made to defend our country whether they agreed with the battle or not, they sacrificed their lives for our liberty. 









Hamas-linked CAIR says US troops should not be honored on Memorial Day
























			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS JOIN MOSQUE BUILDING EFFORT~WORSHIPPING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

THE PROPOSED MOSQUE IN LIBERTY CORNER, BERNARDS TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY; ONLY ONE OF MANY THAT THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS WANT TO HELP BUILD








“NASHVILLE, TN – The Southern Baptist Convention has announced plans to launch an ambitious new program to build mosques all across the nation in order to help foster religious tolerance and “a general sense of niceness” towards all. The massive mosque proliferation plan will be launched through a denomination wide “Mosques Across America” building fund that will appeal to SBC members on the basis of love for “religious liberty” and “the God-given right of anyone to worship any god anyone wants, including Allah.””



““And here in America, all religions are to be treated equally. Everyone in America has a God-given right to worship false gods and build mosques or covens or even satanic temples,” added Moore with a smile while unrolling blueprints for a mosque that he personally plans to help build in Middle Tennessee. “Those are the rules in America, and we have to play by those rules as good American Baptists.””



THE EFFECT OF “SLOWLY BECOMING CATHOLIC” (SBC) IS THAT YOU FIND COMMON GROUND WITH THE POPE





SBCMosqueConstruction



Worshipping Religious Liberty: 



SBC Joins Mosque Building Effort



BY BUD AHLHEIM



SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/05/27/worshipping-religious-liberty-sbc-joins-mosque-building-effort/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:









Southern Baptists, through their Ethics And Religious Liberty Commission and their International Mission Board, have joined hands with Muslims and others to help build a mosque.



But they have to.  It’s inevitable when you hold closely to the tenets of American Christianity.



The SBC’s ERLC and IMB have joined in with the likes of the Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, the Sikh Coalition, and other unlikely allies to support building a mosque.  According to The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty (An organization in which Russell Moore is on the Board of Directors) over 20 “interfaith” groups have united to push forward the agenda of the god of religious liberty in support of the mosque..



The specifics of the case itself are described in the March 10 article in the New York Times, Muslims Sue Over Denial To Build A Mosque in New Jersey.  The New Jersey township of Bernards, a suburb about an hour from Manhattan, has denied an application for a mosque to be built in their town.  The two SBC agencies have joined in the legal brief supporting the Muslims because of the religious liberty implications of the case.



For those who merely worship Americanism – with no regard for any God – the notion voiced by an opponent of the New Jersey mosque is likely amenable, stating that Islam and its Shariah law is “one of the greatest threats to American values and liberties.”  How can a mosque be allowed merely an hour away from where Islamists perpetrated the greatest act of terrorism on American soil?



However, for one driven by the theology of “American Christianity,” the prevalent flavor of faith within evangelical pews, especially Southern Baptist ones, mosque building becomes, perhaps, a “love your neighbor” issue.  When you define your faith by your nation, and that nation inherently defends “freedom,” the American Christian must abide by the demands of tolerance implicit within the framework of the Constitutional Republic.  But freedom, unrestrained, leads rapidly to corruption, destruction, and civil anarchy.



Indeed, American Christianity, as exhibited here by two SBC agencies, must worship the idol of religious freedom. Southern Baptists, led by Russell Moore and the ERLC, are increasingly vocal evangelists for this god, and they do it without clear Scriptural compulsion.  The compulsion they presume comes from the implied notion that America is particular to God, chosen by God, favored by God.  But, again, this notion glaringly lacks Scriptural credence.



It is the necessary worship of the god of religious liberty that compels Moore and the ERLC to be regularly out front chanting the mantra of a god not found in Scripture.  From aligning with Muslims in the mosque lawsuit to standing with Catholics over Obamacare abortion mandates, the hypocrisy of failing to stand firm with any and all in the protection and propagation of this fundamental tenet would be tantamount to engaging in harlotry.



The Baptist Press, on May 25, reported on the latest interfaith consortium led by the ERLC.  All Need Religious Liberty, Baptist, Others Contend highlights the latest multi-faith panel assembled by Moore to promote religious liberty in America.  Moore is quoted stating that religious liberty “is about having the freedom and the opportunity to be genuinely different, to be able to genuinely respect one another and be able to have disagreements with one another, including about the issues that we believe are of ultimate, ultimate significance, while at the same time saying, “These are not matters of coercion, and we do not need a government referee to come and settle those issues.”



Looked at in light of American Christianity, it seems incumbent that Christians vigorously defend religious liberty.  After all, they may shut us down if we don’t.  On the other hand, Moore and others look to the government for the very thing they bemoan – interference that demands protection but not authoritarian coercion.  But looking to government, rather than God, for protection seems a woefully unfaithful form of obedience, does it not?  Is our God not faithful should persecution come our way?



While it is unsurprising that the ERLC would join hands with the world – the agency does that zealously – it does come as a surprise that the SBC’s IMB, under David Platt, would find a motive to add its moniker to the legal battle.  Are they hoping that such a stance might be a “scratch my back” example of co-existence that might be reciprocated elsewhere in the world?  Do we have some denominational plans for a church plant in Mecca?  While that would be tremendous, the fact remains that the Saudis do not entertain the worship of this particular idol.



Herein lies a critical issue when your flavor of faith is first “American” and then “Christian.”  The Word of God nowhere offers such a contracted definition of faith.  While some may claim “Christianity” is the priority – as surely the ERLC and IMB would – it is their behavior that reveals the truth.  “American” takes precedence.



Proclaiming “there is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved” seems uncannily hollow when you’ve just joined hands to help build a Christ-denying mosque. Once again, Christianity becomes just another flavor of religion to an onlooking world and our witness as Southern Baptists diluted by our religious liberty defenses.



If your faith isn’t viewed through the lens of God’s sovereignty or His faithfulness and is seen instead through the lens of theologically-aberrant “American Christianity,” it is of little comfort that God is with you always.  What seems, rather, substantially more important is that the god of religious liberty is with you always.  And that god demands defense for itself at all costs with whoever is willing to battle alongside for it.  Indeed, the first commandment is supplanted in “American” Christianity, it seems, by one more akin to “you shall have no other gods before me, except the god of religious liberty.”



We have been supremely blessed in America to have been founded on principles drawn from Scripture.  But those principles, in themselves, do not make us an intrinsically “Christian” nation.  By strict definition, we have never been a “Christian” nation, but rather we have, for a blessedly brief tenure, been a nationof Christians.  We once were Christians first, and Americans second.  It wasn’t a subtle distinction, but an intentional one.  It’s one we seem to have lost since now we worship religious liberty, rather than the God who is with us always  … regardless.



Should Christians stand and fight for religious liberty?  Of course.  Absolutely. We should not forsake a vigilant fight to maintain fundamental American freedoms.  But, as Christians first, should we not be intentionally cautious as to how and with whom we defend them? Scriptural commands for us to be separate from the world are thoroughly ignored by the SBC in pursuit of a right that, while certainly expected in America, is unessential to our faith. I’m not too comfortable knowing a portion of my tithes went to help argue a legal case for the construction of a mosque.  What is the price of our witness, our faithfulness, and our trust in God’s sovereignty as we usurp His commands by our worldly alliances pleading for legislated freedom?



We should be cautious about how we align with this god of religious liberty because it is nothing less than the current “spirit of the world,” the one beckoning for tolerance and co-existence.  If you’re an American only, you likely find that acceptable.  But if you’re a Christian first, you might find yourself Biblically bristling at the notion of co-existence.  Indeed, you should.



How long is the leap from governmentally legislated religious liberty to authoritarian-induced tolerance for anyone and anything, regardless how bizarre, ungodly, or vile?  When will a transgender bathroom be dictated for your sanctuary’s foyer?  Religious liberty is not that dissimilar, you see, from personal liberty, in the tenets of Americanism.



Should we not be overly cautious with our alliances when lurking around the next corner may be a stronger, more powerful personal liberty lobby that, beseeching the government for its protection too, may one day dictate distinctly unpalatable expectations on the church?  Can we be certain that having our cake of mandated religious liberty might not later mean we may be forced to eat a slice of legislated personal liberty blasphemy? Does it not seem likely that gay marriage ceremonies, transgender bathrooms, and the like, as protected personal freedoms, forcefully find their legislated ways into the church?



The church is called to be separate from the world, not to join in building temples to its pagan gods.  But in the name of religious liberty the SBC stands united with pagans for the construction of a mosque.  How long before, perhaps, it is equally required to stand for the building of an abortuary in the name of defending personal “liberty?”  Would never happen, you say?  How long ago would you have denied the possibility of your tithes and offerings going to an SBC agency that would use them to stand in support of mosque building?



Religious liberty, for all the wonderful blessings it has bestowed in America, can quickly become a favored tool of a definite, destructive, God-hating enemy.  Is it necessary for us to stand with evil to build their temples in order to protect ourselves?  Must we stand with pagans pleading for legislated safety, unsure that God will actually be faithful?



Sometimes God blesses us, and increases His glory, by taking things away and allowing persecution to come.  It worked for that early, first Jerusalem church when persecution intensified the spread of the Gospel.  It worked again in the 16th century when the Reformation exploded God’s Word across the world.



We ought to pray it works again because the god of religious liberty doesn’t play favorites – it will eventually slay all comers by granting unfettered “freedom” while Truth goes ignored, un-worshipped, and increasingly unknown.  When our assurance is based on legislated tolerance in our favor, we must recognize the double-edged sword of tolerance slices not only along lines of religious liberty but also along personal liberty lines too. Trusting government for religious liberty seems rather culturally hypocritical when they come to change the bathroom signs in our churches in the name of personal liberty.



Is religious liberty perhaps just another mask of the enemy as he whispers appealingly for us to co-exist?   When do we determine “what fellowship has light with darkness?”  (2 Corinthians 6:14)  Freedom, unrestrained, rapidly becomes enslavement.  The world under Romans 1 judgment thinks it is free to do as it wills, unaware that very freedom leads to God’s full and final, wrathful justice.  Rather than standing for unfettered freedom with no regard for the embrace of a pagan world it seems to necessitate, at least for the SBC, should we not, instead, stand in obedience to the Truth that truly sets us free?  (John 8:31-32)



Let us continue to stand for religious liberty in America.  But let us stand first on our firm convictions that our alliance with God is paramount, that He will accomplish His ends without the necessity of our alliances with evil.  “Come out from among them.”  (2 Corinthians 6:17)



There just may come a day, delivered to us via the god of religious liberty, and its close cousin of personal liberty – though under the certain, absolute, providential, sovereign permissive will of the true God – when we will be faced with an opportunity to echo Joshua’s words.  It might be best if we committed to it now …



But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.  Joshua 24:15



It’s worth thinking about …



_____________________________________________________







Civil Rights Investigation Open Over Proposed Mosque in Bernards Township, N.J.



Published on Mar 21, 2016





The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge bought a four-acre plot in Bernards Township with plans to raze the house and build a mosque. But those plans were derailed after nearly 40 public hearings and four years of denied permits.















			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
ATTORNEYS FOR ALABAMA CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE SUE COMMISSION OVER CHARGES, SUSPENSION FROM BENCH
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

Moore Restored



SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:







ATTORNEYS FOR ALABAMA CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE SUE COMMISSION OVER CHARGES, SUSPENSION FROM BENCH



BY HEATHER CLARK



SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/28/attorneys-for-alabama-chief-justice-roy-moore-sue-commission-over-charges-suspension-from-bench/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Attorneys for embattled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore have sued the state Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) to challenge the constitutionality of the charges leveled against the “Ten Commandments Judge” and to seek his immediate reinstatement to the bench.



“The charges against Chief Justice Roy Moore must be dismissed. The JIC has no jurisdiction over an administrative order of the chief justice. Only the Alabama Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and that court agreed with the order,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement on Friday.



“We are asking the federal court to strike down the automatic removal provision in the Alabama State Constitution and we are asking that Chief Justice Moore be immediately reinstated,” he stated.







Staver also said that Liberty Counsel will also assert that the JIC violated the confidentiality rule that requires that details of an investigation be keep confidential until charges are issued.



“In this case, the JIC intentionally leaked the pending charges to the media, which is a serious violation of the JIC rules,” he said.



As previously reported, Moore was suspended from the bench earlier this month and now faces possible removal after the homosexual advocacy groups Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and a drag queen who goes by the name Ambrosia Starling, pressed the JIC to take action against Moore.



The situation began in 2013 when two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.



January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women.



“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”



“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”



Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”



“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.



The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) then filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.



As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.



“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order read. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”



In January, Moore sent another letter advising that the full court’s would remain in effect until it issued directives in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.



“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.



He also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive, and said that it was not his place to make that determination.



“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.



Earlier this month, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore as a result of the SPLC complaint, and suspended the chief justice while he faces a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.



It said that Moore was “bound by the United State Supreme Court’s interpretation and application” of the Constitution to same-sex “marriage,” but Moore notes that his letter had nothing to do with the Supreme Court order, and that the full court was to later issue directives about the matter after receiving legal briefing.



Liberty Counsel says that the JIC has no authority to render legal opinions when it disagrees with a judge’s view of the law, and that the automatic suspension requirement in the Alabama Constitution violates due process.



“The automatic removal provision places far too much power in the JIC, which can just file charges and have a judge removed,” Staver said.



_______________________________________________________



Former Director of Group That Filed Complaint Against Chief Justice Roy Moore Hired as Prosecutor




_______________________________________________________







Kayla Moore Defends Her Husband, 
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore











Rally for Judge Moore



Published on May 23, 2016





Complete video from the Stand With Judge Moore Rally, for God, Marriage, and the Constitution. Over 1000 Christians from across the State, and others from around the nation joined us to stand with Chief Justice Roy Moore, and demand that he be reinstated to his rightful position, and the illegitimate, politically motivated charges be dropped.















The Pretended Offenses of Chief Justice 
Roy Moore – Jake MacAulay











Drag Queen “Ambrosia Starling” Leads Charge 
Against Judge Roy Moore














                                 



Ambrosia Starling Discusses A Run For Alabama Governor in 2018



Published on May 16, 2016





“When we treat each other decently in public, that’s when we know everything’s going to be all right. If you want Ambrosia Starling for Governor; if you think that’s what it’s going to take… baby I’m all there and all for it.” So proclaimed an Alabama drag queen who has publicly jousted about marriage equality & transgender rights with suspended AL Chief Justice Roy Moore.



























WKRG 





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERS PERMITTING ADVANCED RUSSIAN ARMS SALES TO IRAN~BUT DELIVERIES HAVE ALREADY STARTED IN 2015
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





Published on Dec 5, 2015





Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | The arms trade adviser to President Vladimir Putin says Russia has begun delivering S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, according to the Russian state news agency Tass.


Tass quoted Vladimir Kozhin as saying Thursday that the implementation of the contract for the delivery of the S-300s has begun and the deliveries have started. He didn’t provide any specifics.


See the report here:
https://youtu.be/eFs_OwaMogE


Read more:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/report-russ…









OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERS PERMITTING ADVANCED RUSSIAN ARMS SALES TO IRAN 



White House might not invoke laws triggering new sanctions



BY ADAM KREDO



SEE: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-considers-permitting-advanced-russian-arms-sales-iran/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







The Obama administration has the power to sanction key Russian arms sales to Iran, but has so far abstained from exercising this right under U.S. law, prompting some in Congress to question whether the administration is “acquiescing” to the arms sales in order to appease Iran, according to conversations with sources and recent congressional correspondence to the White House exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.



President Barack Obama has the authority under U.S. law to designate as illegal Russia’s contested sale to Iran of the S-300 missile system, an advanced long-range weapon that would boost the Islamic Republic’s regional military might.



However, the administration has declined for weeks to clarify its stance on new sanctions, despite expressing opposition to the sale. Administration officials have further declined to answer questions from the Free Beacon and other outlets about whether the president will consider taking action in the future.



The administration’s hesitance to act has prompted a new congressional inquiry, the Free Beacon has learned, and has sparked accusations that the White House is not exercising its sanction authority in order to prevent Iran from walking away from last summer’s nuclear deal.



Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio) sent an inquiry to the White House about the matter more than a month ago. The White House has not responded.



“Given the series implications for the United States and our allies in the region, I respectfully request that you quickly determine that Russia’s transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missile systems advance Iran’s efforts to acquire ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advances conventional weapons’ and impose the necessary U.S. sanctions once the Russian delivery takes place,” Chabot wrote to the White House on April 7, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Free Beacon.



Chabot outlined concern “that without such a determination the United States may be viewed as acquiescing to this transfer” of a major defensive weapons system to Iran.



Chabot told the Free Beacon on Thursday the administration has not responded to multiple inquiries about the potential designation.



“Despite multiple inquires to the U.S. Department of State, I still have not received a response on Russia’s S300 surface-to-air missile system transfer to Iran,” Chabot said. “This apparent dismissal leaves me wondering what exactly the Administration is hiding. I am really asking a simple question – is the introduction of a sophisticated weapon system into Iran, that has not been there previously, going to elicit the appropriate U.S. sanctions response? I am not sure why the Administration has found it so hard to come to a determination. The S300 is one of the most advanced anti-aircraft missile system’s in the world and significantly bolsters Iran’s offensive capabilities and stands as a serious hurdle to our efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. This is absolutely a destabilizing conventional weapon system.”



When contacted for comment, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the administration has not made a final determination about whether the S-300 sale would trigger additional U.S. sanctions.



“We’re continuing to closely follow reports concerning the delivery of the S-300 defensive missile system from Russia to Iran‎,” the official said. “We have not made a determination as to whether this delivery, if and when complete, would trigger any actions under U.S. authorities.”



“These systems would significantly bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities and introduce new obstacles to our efforts to eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I believe existing U.S. sanctions should be used to deter Russia from transferring this or other dangerous weapons systems to Iran,” Chabot said.



The sale is technically permitted under current United Nations resolutions governing weapons sales. However, the Obama administration has the right to veto certain arms sales at the U.N. Security Council. The administration has not committed to doing so.



U.S. law also grants the president the right to designate such sales as illicit and therefore open to sanctions.



The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 grants the president authority to sanction the sale of “advanced conventional weapons” to Iran by any nation.



“U.S. law provides your administration with the authority to apply U.S. sanctions in response” to the sale, Chabot explains in his letter. “For example, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act and the Iran Sanctions Act provide authority for you to sanction individuals or countries that you determine are aiding Iran’s efforts to acquire or develop ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.’”



Sanctions would kick in if the president decides that such a sale would destabilize the Middle East and shift regional balance.



“Iran’s acquisition of these systems would embolden Tehran to adopt a more threatening regional posture and to pursue offensive activities detrimental to regional stability in the belief that the systems would deter retaliation,” according to Chabot.



Reporters as well as lawmakers have attempted for weeks to get an answer from the administration about whether the president would make such a determination.



One foreign policy adviser who works closely with Congress on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the administration can no longer waffle on the issue.



“The administration tried to look the other way, but got called out for it by Congress. Then they spent a month and a half hoping that the whole thing would go away,” the source said. “Now I don’t know what they’re going to do, since it’s obvious that they’re letting Iran import advanced weapons in violation of U.S. law just to preserve the nuclear deal.”

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TEACHER WHO IDENTIFIES AS “NEITHER” AWARDED $60,000 AFTER CO-WORKERS WOULDN’T CALL HER “THEY”~MAYBE THE DEMONS ARE “LEGION”?
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

Soell-compressed















TEACHER WHO IDENTIFIES AS “NEITHER” AWARDED $60,000 AFTER CO-WORKERS WOULDN’T CALL HER “THEY”



BY HEATHER CLARK



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





GRESHAM, Ore. — A female elementary school teacher who says she neither identifies as male nor female has been awarded $60,000 in a settlement with her school district after she lodged a complaint that her co-workers continued to refer to her as a woman and wouldn’t call her “they.”



The 25-year-old teacher at Hall Elementary School, who now goes by the name Leo Soell, had told her friends in 2013 that she did not feel that she identified as either male or female. However, she did not reveal her feelings to her employers with the Gresham-Barlow School District, who continued to refer to her by her female name and pronoun.



In November of the following year, Soell was diagnosed with breast cancer. After obtaining a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery to make her chest look more masculine, Soell approached the district to advise that she had changed her name to Leo as she identified as “genderqueer” or “transmasculine,” and desired to be referred to as “they.”



According to reports, the district told teachers not to refer to Soell as “they” in front of students due to concerns about age appropriateness. It instead instructed to reply if students asked if Soell was a man or woman, “We all have private lives, and it would not be appropriate to talk about our private lives during the school day.”



In Soell’s complaint, she alleged that teachers continued to refer to her as “she” or “Miss Soell,” and some called her a lady. So she and a teacher’s union field a grievance and the district hired a transgender advocacy group to provide training for teachers.



But Soell says that some teachers continued to refuse to call her “they” in front of parents and children, and one “berated” a child who corrected a teacher for using the pronoun “she.” She also claims that teachers suddenly began using the gender-neutral restroom, which made her wait longer to be able to use the lavatory.



The district launched an investigation into Soell’s complaint, but did not find any evidence of harassment.



Therefore, Soell hired an attorney, who informed the district of their intent to file a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The district then suggested a settlement.



According to The Oregonian, the agreement includes a $60,000 payment to Soell for emotional distress and attorneys fees. Officials also agreed to make gender neutral restrooms available at all schools within the district. Hall Elementary School now has only gender neutral restrooms, and teachers are required to call Soell “they” under the possibility of discipline or dismissal.



“So people can basically force us—on pain of massive legal liability—to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie,” attorney Eugene Volokh recently wrote for the Washington Post in decrying a newly-established transgender law in New York City.



“We have to call people ‘him’ and ‘her’ even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions—perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are ‘gender-fluid’—and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie,” he said.
















			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
FIVE STATE DEPARTMENT RULES THAT HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAIL PRACTICES VIOLATED~BUT SHE SAYS THE RULES CAME AFTER; IT DIDN’T “SEEM” TO MATTER
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

RULES DON’T MATTER? 




Hillary Clinton / AP



FIVE STATE DEPARTMENT RULES THAT HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAIL PRACTICES VIOLATED



IG report notes failure to abide by a number of laws and regulations



BY LACHLAN MARKAY



SEE: http://freebeacon.com/issues/five-state-department-rules-hillary-email-violated/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email address as secretary of state appears to have run afoul of five different laws and regulations governing information security at the State Department, according to a recent government report.



The report, from the State Department’s inspector general, has renewed scrutiny of Clinton’s email practices, which critics say jeopardized sensitive or classified information and shielded Clinton’s activities from laws designed to ensure public access to government information.



The inspector general’s examination focused on statutes and regulations specific to the State Department. The more serious allegations against Clinton have to do with potential violations of the Espionage Act, which lays out penalties for “gross negligence” in the handling of sensitive national security information.



That investigation is ongoing, but the report identifies five other laws or regulations that Clinton circumvented or failed to follow. They contradict the Clinton campaign’s repeated claims that Clinton’s email practices at the State Department complied with all relevant rules regarding federal records and information security. 



Retaining agency records after leaving



“Departing officials and employees [may] not remove Federal records from agency custody” —36 C.F.R. § 1222.24



Clinton’s personal email address, which she used exclusively as secretary of state, was housed on a private email server in her Chappaqua, N.Y. home. That meant her emails, which are considered federal records, were never in federal custody while she served as secretary. She didn’t just retain records after leaving the State Department; those records were never in the department’s possession in the first place.



The State Department is responsible for transferring records to the National Archives and Records Administration after a federal employee’s departure. But the State Department only requested Clinton’s emails in October 2014, a year and a half after she left office. The records agency only learned of Clinton’s private email server through media reports in March 2015, more than two years after her tenure. 



Properly archiving agency records



“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” —36 C.F.R. § 1236.22(b)



Clinton claims that the fact she was sending emails to federal employees using official email accounts meant that those emails were being archived properly. The IG rejected that explanation and concluded that Clinton had violated rules on the preservation of federal records.



“Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the IG wrote. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”



Provisions of that law are designed to preserve agency records so that they are available to the general public through open records requests. Clinton emails quoted in the report suggest she was attempting to avoid just that type of scrutiny. 



Preserving federal records from loss or destruction



“All Department employees are … required by law to preserve documentary materials meeting the definition of a record under the Federal Records Act [and are] responsible for creating, using, maintaining, preserving, and disposing of the Department’s information and records.” —State Department Foreign Affairs Manual



Clinton has said that she deleted roughly 30,000 emails stored on her server that she deemed of a personal and non-official nature. Neither the State Department nor the records agency has ever seen those emails. We now know that they included messages that were official in nature.



The IG report identified a number of such emails to Gen. David Petraeus. “The Department of Defense provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus on his official Department of Defense email account.” None of those 19 emails were turned over to the State Department.



Other deleted Clinton emails included dispatches about the Libyan civil war and the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the country.



Use of department-approved computing devices



“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” —State Department Foreign Affairs Manual



According to the inspector general, Clinton never received department approval to conduct official agency business on her private email server. She never consulted with the proper authorities before doing so. If she had, her email arrangement would have been rejected.



“According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs,” stated the IG report.



“However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.”



Handling of sensitive-but-unclassified (SBU) information



“Where warranted by the nature of the information, employees who will be transmitting SBU information outside of the Department network on a regular basis to the same official and/or most personal addresses, must contact the [information security officials] for guidance in implementing a secure technical solution for those transmissions.” —State Department Foreign Affairs Manual



“Emails exchanged on [Clinton’s] personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU,” but she never obtained the required approval for the handling of such information on a personal computing device. Because a security review never occurred, “Secretary Clinton never demonstrated … that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements.”





Information security officials from Clinton’s time at the agency told the IG “that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.”



______________________________________________________



New State Department Audit Disqualifies Hillary Clinton From Running For President







By Federal law, Hillary Clinton is ineligible to run for President, according to 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b)



BY TONY ELLIOTT



SEE: http://freedomoutpost.com/new-state-department-audit-disqualifies-hillary-clinton-from-running-for-president/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:









A State Department audit released 05/26/2016 faults Hillary Clinton in stating that her and her team ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her private email use in sensitive government matters broke Federal standards and could leave sensitive materials vulnerable to hackers. The Inspector General’s review goes on to say hacking attempts forced then Secretary of State Clinton off of using email at one point in 2011.



The 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says Clinton ignored clear directives. She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email, and never demonstrated that the server or the Blackberry she used while in office “met minimum information security requirements.”



Twice in 2010, information management staff at the State Department raised concerns that Clinton’s email practices failed to meet federal records-keeping requirements. The staff’s director responded that Clinton’s personal email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, and that “the matter was not to be discussed any further.”



By Federal law, this means Hillary Clinton is ineligible to run for President, according to 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b), which states:



“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”



Above all, under Federal law, Hillary Clinton must be disqualified from running for President of the United States and should be fined and/or imprisoned for willfully breaking the law.





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TIM KELLER’S REDEEMER PRESBYTERIAN MINISTRY DIRECTOR IS A REGULAR DONOR TO BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

WEST SIDE MANHATTAN NEW YORK GNOSTIC “REFORMED” SOCIALISM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ARRIVED & ARE UP AND COMING



Keller Koch-compressed



TIFFANY KOCH: 





“I am sort of obsessed with French Roast being open 24 hours a day, knowing that day or night I’m always just a few blocks from a Croque Monsieur. Is that a good thing?”








Tiffany came to Redeemer in 2003, after decades of being angry at the hypocrisy and brokenness she saw in religious people and organized religion. She came mostly in an effort to seem very open-minded and fair to the guy she was dating, who brought her. But one Sunday, the story of Zacchaeus challenged her to see God for herself, rather than letting other people translate or tell her who He was: “I began to understand that broken people getting things wrong wasn’t proof of the absence of God or the hollowness of his promises, but instead was proof of how much we need him and how much he loves us.”







TIM KELLER’S REDEEMER PRESBYTERIAN MINISTRY DIRECTOR IS A REGULAR DONOR TO BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN 



BY HEATHER CLARK



SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/26/tim-kellers-redeemer-presbyterian-ministry-director-regular-donor-to-bernie-sanders-campaign/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







NEW YORK — In the midst of a famine in the professing American church for biblical instruction on selecting leaders for civil government, public records show that a ministry leader at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, founded and led by popular megachurch pastor and author Tim Keller, has been a consistent donor to the Bernie Sanders campaign.







The Federal Elections Commission website, which records the political donations of Americans under the names of their employers, shows that Tiffany Koch, the ministry director at the West Side campus of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, made 76 donations to Sanders since October.



The donations were made several times a week, for example, on February 1, 2 and 5, and on April 18, 21, 22 and 23, with amounts varying from $15 to $100. Next to Koch’s donor info reads under employer and occupation “Redeemer Presbyterian Church/Ministry Director” located in New York, NY. The total donations to date amount to $2,449.







As previously reported, Sanders, a Vermont Democrat, is a same-sex “marriage” supporter and believes that abortion should be legal until birth. He is also self-identified as a socialist.



“Can you name a single circumstance at any point in a pregnancy in which you would be okay with abortion being illegal?” Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Sanders during a town hall meeting in September.



“It’s not a question of being okay,” Sanders replied. “I believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.”



“I guess the genesis of the question is that, you know, there are some Democrats who say after five months, with the exception of the life of the mother or the health of the baby, that perhaps that’s something to look at,” Bair said. “You’re saying no.”



am very strongly pro-choice,” Sanders replied. “That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That’s my view.”



Sanders also told students at Liberty University that same month, “I believe in a woman’s rights, and the right of a woman to control her own body. I believe gay rights and gay marriage. Those are my views, and it is no secret.”



As previously reported, Casey Fulgenzi, a self-identified progressive who serves as the manager of social media for Redeemer Presbyterian Church, as well as the assistant manager for Keller’s resource site Gospel in Life, has likewise expressed his support for Sanders.



In February, Fulgenzi wrote on social media that he will “happily vote for either [Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders] when the time comes.” He had shared an article last September on “The Christian Case for Bernie Sanders.”







Thabiti-compressed



“He’s Jewish, but his character, words and actions are more Christ like than any of the Christian candidates,” Fulgenzi wrote on April 16 in sharing that he went to hear Sanders speak at a local church. “We deserve that in our next president, whether he or she be Muslim, Atheist, Christian or Jewish.”



Thabiti Anyabwile, the leader of Anacostia River Church in Washington, D.C., a congregation planted by church health advocate Mark Dever, who serves on the board for Keller’s Gospel Coalition, recently announced that he will rather vote for Hillary Clinton for president.



“Let the hate begin. But if choice is between Clinton and Trump, I’m voting Clinton. I’ll go back to not voting when this man is defeated!” he wrote on social media on May 9.



Tom Palumbo, a deacon at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, advised Christian News Network that he believes voting is a “philosophical matter” and he would not consider it concerning or sinful for church leaders to vote for candidates such as Bernie Sanders. Messages for Koch and Keller were not returned.



A number of other congregations were listed on the Federal Elections Commission website, with Dawn Aberg, education director at the Church of the Holy Comforter of Charlottesville, Virginia; Frank Elliott, senior minister of the Church of Truth of Los Angeles, California; Scott Shirley, pastor of Church in the Cliff of Dallas, Texas; and Lisa Webb, administrative assistant at Church of the Good Samaritan in Knoxville, Tennessee among those who have donated to Sanders.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
ILLINOIS BILL FORCING PRO-LIFERS TO “REFER FOR ABORTION” SENT TO GOVERNOR’S DESK
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						









ILLINOIS BILL FORCING PRO-LIFERS TO “REFER FOR ABORTION” 



SENT TO GOVERNOR’S DESK 



SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/illinois-bill-forcing-pro-lifers-to-refer-for-abortion-sent-to-governors-desk/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







May 26, 2016 (Pregnancy Help News) — Illinois came one step closer to forcing its pro-life medical community to choose between violating state law and violating deeply held religious conscience Wednesday, as the state’s House approved Senate Bill 1564 and set the legislation on the governor’s desk.



The bill, which would introduce decisive changes to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, passed by a 61-54 margin and now awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.



Originally put forward in the summer of 2015, the legislation would require pro-life medical providers, including 51 Illinois nonprofit pregnancy centers offering free services including ultrasound and STI testing, to take action the bill’s opponents say amounts to participating in an abortion.



Particularly at issue is the bill’s requirement that every Illinois pro-life medical provider of any kind who chooses not to perform a procedure such as abortion or a prescription for birth control has one of three options: Either they must “refer the patient” to another provider, “transfer the patient” to another provider, or provide a list of “other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service.”



One way or another, the law would compel pro-life medical providers in Illinois to participate in abortions.



Stripping pro-life medical providers of their freedom to hold to life-affirming beliefs and refuse to participate in abortion would have a far-reaching effect on Illinois women, Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said.



“This Amendment takes away the rights of Illinois women to be treated by a pro-life doctor, because it would force medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to performing abortions (and other procedures) to refer for, make arrangements for someone else to perform, or arrange referral information that lists willing providers, for abortions,” Bowman said.



“By violating the pro-life principles of pro-life physicians and medical organizations, the Amendment would deprive Illinois women of their choice of a medical provider that does not refer or arrange for abortions in any way.”



Bowman, who urged the pro-life community to contact Gov. Rauner’s office immediately (click here to contact Gov. Rauner) and ask him to veto the legislation, has helped spearhead the opposition to SB 1564 since 2015, drafting a letter to the state Senate, in which he stated ADF’s intention to oppose the law in court, if needed.



Co-signatories on the letter included pregnancy help organization affiliate organizations Heartbeat International and Care Net, as well as American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, six Illinois physicians—four of whom are OB/GYNs—and 11 Illinois pregnancy medical centers.



Wednesday’s vote in the Illinois House comes just two days after Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer vowed to enforce California’s so-called “Reproductive FACT Act,” which Bowman and ADF are currently scheduled to challenge at a June 14 hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.



“We’re seeing a renewed sense of vigor and vitriol directed at life-affirming professionals, practices and pregnancy centers,” Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, said. “No woman should ever be compelled by her state to consider abortion as her only option in an unexpected pregnancy, and that is exactly who will suffer because of this legislation.”



While pregnancy help organizations counsel clients and patients on such facts as the baby’s development, and the physical and psychological dangers of abortion, the proposed legislation’s inclusion of a requirement to counsel on the “benefits” of abortion has also raised concern among pro-life opponents to the bill.



Although the bill requires pro-life healthcare providers and organizations to participate in abortion, it does not include stipulations that healthcare professionals, institutions, or organizations counsel patients on alternatives to abortion such as parenting or placing for adoption.



Similar government-sponsored speech for pregnancy centers has been struck down as unconstitutional in Austin (TX), Baltimore and Montgomery County (MD) and New York City.



“We have over 100 pregnancy help centers for women in Illinois that are supported by private donations and run by people who selflessly give their time to help women in an unplanned pregnancy,” Emily Zender, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, said. “This bill would destroy the pregnancy centers forcing them to violate their own mission and jeopardize women’s health. We strongly urge the Governor to veto this bill.”



In addition to contacting the governor’s office directly, Illinois Right to Life is building a petition at www.ProtectMyConscience.org.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
THE ALPHA COURSE-AN EVANGELICAL CONTRADICTION
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

BKT-ALPHA-3



THE ALPHA COURSE-AN EVANGELICAL CONTRADICTION



FROM LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH



SEE: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2016/newsletter20160525.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







NEW BOOKLET: The Alpha Course— An Evangelical Contradiction by Mary Danielsen and Chris Lawson is our newest Lighthouse Trails Booklet Tract.  The Booklet Tract is 16 pages long and sells for $1.95 for single copies. Quantity discounts are as much as 50% off retail. Our Booklet Tracts are designed to give away to others or for your own personal use. Below is the content of the booklet. To order copies of  The Alpha Course— An Evangelical Contradiction, click here.


By Mary Danielsen and Chris Lawson

Let us first open this overview of the Alpha Course with several passages in Scripture that warn us of the wolves that will enter the church looking to pervert the Gospel and introduce falsehood. We must always measure everything by the plumbline of God’s Word because without that, deception awaits.

2 Peter 2:1-2 tells us:



But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.


1 John 4:1 tells us to “try [test] the spirits” to see if they are from God; and 1 Timothy 4:1 says:



Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.


That verse should cause every believer in Christ to be increasingly sober-minded and vigilant.

Now, when Scripture tells us to test all things, this is not a mere take-it -or-leave-it suggestion. We are clearly instructed that this is an absolute needful thing for us to do—and it is needed more today than ever before. It is becoming more and more clear that most churches (and most individual Christians too) are not doing this simple thing because the level of apostasy and heresy in the church today is mind-boggling and growing by the day.

We know this booklet is going to ruffle some feathers by challenging the Alpha Course. But as the late apologist Walter Martin said, “Controversy for its own sake is sin. Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine mandate.” In light of that, we will state our case for the many unbiblical problems with the Alpha Course and leave it to the reader to decide if it is of any value to the church.

Alpha and the Anglican Church
The Alpha Toolkit is offered for $199 which provides churches with all the materials needed to train small group leaders, marketing materials to entice church-goers and non-church-goers alike, workbook-type guides for each participant and the all-important DVD featuring fifteen talks by Nicky Gumbel.

The Alpha Course is presented as an evangelistic course designed to bring an easy-going method of exploring the “big questions” of life from a Christian perspective.1 With such a vague description, Alpha appeals to a wide range of seekers.

Alpha Course was started in 1977 by an Anglican priest named Charles Marnham, serving at Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB) parish in London. It began as a course for church members on the basics of the faith.

Shortly later, John Irvine, a curate at the time at HTB, took it over and developed it into the format it has today. In 1990, Sandy Millar (vicar of HTB at that time) invited HTB reverend Nicky Gumbel to take the helm of the Alpha Course, overseeing further revisions to appeal to the widest audience possible. Gumbel added his own touch to Alpha, helping the program to spread around the world at an exponential rate.

It is important to recognize that Alpha’s creation in the Anglican Church is significant. The Anglican Church dates back to the 16th century when King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, which would not allow him to get a divorce. Henry decided to use his throne to pass a series of laws to prevent the office of the Pope from having any authority in England. One of these laws, titled “The Act of Supremacy,” declared the King of England to be the head of the newly formed Church of England, giving him virtually the same level of authority in England as the Pope had over the Catholic Church. As a result, the Anglican Church is a curious and ecumenical mix of Catholicism and Protestantism. The 39 articles of Anglican belief developed in the reign of Elizabeth I laid out the Protestant doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church but were deliberately written to be so vague that they were open to various interpretations by Protestants and Catholics alike.2

With 80 million members worldwide today, the Anglican Church (which includes the Episcopal church) is largely in sync with the liberal political, theological, and ecumenical worldviews seen throughout postmodern Protestantism today. So it should not surprise anyone that Anglicanism finds a strong voice in evangelical circles via the Alpha Course by those who value unity over truth, social justice over the true Gospel, and a strong desire to reconnect with our “vintage” faith—marching off to reconcile with Rome at the end of the day.

Nicky Gumbel
Who is this man with the unassuming and friendly name, Nicky Gumbel? His bio alone should cause red flags, but the average North American Christian either knows nothing of his bio, or he or she simply doesn’t care. Again, considering the church today, both cases are probably equally true.

Gumbel is vicar of the largest Anglican church in Britain (a big problem in itself when you realize what the Anglican church stands for, as we have explained above). If you look at the website of Gumbel’s church, Holy Trinity Church Brompton, you will find a typical site that looks similar to many Protestant church sites today. In addition, if you were to do a search on Gumbel’s view of the Bible, you will find much encouragement to read the Bible, and you might presume from what you read that he and his church place a high value on its contents.

The truth is, anyone can say they revere the Bible; anyone can say they read it and want you to read it as well; anyone can present an orthodox “Statement of Faith.” But what needs to be examined is what that person or organization is truly teaching. Anyone can talk the talk, but it takes a lot more than having a good sounding doctrinal statement to walk a genuine walk. The fruit of a self-proclaiming Christian group needs to be looked at.

This does explain, though, how: 1) there can be so many biblical references in the Alpha Course and yet have it be so off the mark, and 2) how they can emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit and still manage to completely misrepresent Him to the Alpha student. Just because there are a multitude of Bible verses used does not mean they are interpreted or applied correctly. The Bible can be and often is misconstrued and taken out of context. At any rate, today the Anglican Church in Britain, under the authority of Prince Charles, is certainly not known for sound doctrine or emphasis on the kind of Christianity that the Scriptures describe, so “fruit inspection” is crucial.

An important development in the historical background of Alpha’s creators is that HTB Church became the center of the “holy laughter” movement for England and Europe in the 1990s. Eleanor Mumford, along with her husband John, carried the Vineyard movement to the UK (with grudging approval from Vineyard founder John Wimber3), visited the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church in Ontario in 1994, and brought back the experiences she had there. Nicky Gumbel attended a meeting in a home in May 1994 where Mumford told of her experiences in Toronto and “invited the Holy Spirit to come.”

The moment she did that, strange things began to happen. One person was thrown across the room and did lie on the floor howling and laughing, “making the most incredible noise.” Another man was lying on the floor “prophesying.” Some appeared to be drunk. Gumbel testified that he had an experience “like massive electricity going through my body.”4 Gumbel got himself together and rushed to a meeting at Holy Trinity Brompton. . . .When he closed that meeting with prayer and said, “Lord, thank you so much for all you are doing, and we pray you’ll send your Spirit,” the same strange phenomenon were again manifested. One of those present lying on the floor with his feet in the air started “laughing like a hyena.”

Nicky Gumbel spends a substantial amount of time relating to Alpha participants in Alpha’s video 3 talk 9, exactly how this occurred:



Ellie Mumford told us a little bit of what she had seen in Toronto . . . It was obvious that Ellie was just dying to pray for all of us. . . . Then she said, “Now we’ll invite the Holy Spirit to come.” And the moment she said that one of the people there was thrown, literally, across the room and was lying on the floor, just howling and laughing—making the most incredible noise. . . . I experienced the power of the Spirit in a way I hadn’t experienced for years, like massive electricity going through my body. One of the guys was prophesying. He was just lying there prophesying.5


From there, others brought the movement to Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida, and the hyper-charismatic church of the ‘90s once again brought shame to the Christian community by laughing, barking, and claiming that gold dust and feathers falling on their assemblies was proof of God’s presence and approval. At some gatherings, taxis were provided for those “too drunk in the spirit” to drive home from services.

If you are saying to yourself that this is old news (1994) and not relevant today, let us caution you that today Alpha is bigger and more influential than ever. According to Alpha’s own site, over 27 million people have now completed Alpha, and its running in 169 countries in 112 languages. Spiritual deception never disappears. Our adversary just regroups it for a different (i.e., bigger) audience because 1) so many proclaiming Christians do not know about context, nor do they really seem to care, and 2) the devil is not going to dismiss a perfectly good deception if he can nab a successive generation with its lies.
So here is our warning: if you believe that Gumbel’s Holy Spirit doctrines are not a problem and his bringing the Brownsville debacle into the church is not important to anyone any longer, then please continue to read. The truth of the matter is that any falsehood we allow, even in small leavenous lumps, leads to greater compromise down the road unless true repentance takes place.

Alpha Doctrines
In an interview with the UK Guardian in 2009, Gumbel makes it clear that while he considers himself a Christian, more specifically he is an Anglican. He explains:



This may sound pernickety but I wouldn’t describe myself as an evangelical. These are labels, which I don’t think are helpful. If I was going to use any label it would be Christian, and if you push me any further I’d say I’m an Anglican—that’s the family of the Church that I belong to.6


Since the Anglican Church has so much in common with the Roman Catholic Church, we have to wonder how evangelicals got the impression that the Alpha Course is compatible with Protestant/evangelical Christianity.

In the following two quotes, we can see Gumbel’s acceptance and promotion of Roman Catholicism and the Catholic papacy:



It was a great honor to be presented to Pope John Paul II, who has done so much to promote evangelism around the world. We have been enormously enriched by our interaction with Catholics in many countries.7

Probably one of the strongest movements of the Holy Spirit is in the Roman Catholic Church, so there’s not a huge theological difference between the official teaching of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, for example.8


So we see that the Anglican Church, which has foundations deep in Catholicism, has produced a program that is sweeping the globe, designed to give simple answers to people who want to know the meaning of life. Alpha is designed to be fun and attractive, affirming and enjoyable (i.e., “inoffensive”). But how will this Catholic-influenced agenda point people to the real Jesus Christ, the real Gospel, the real sinful state of humans under the conviction of sin, and their need for a Savior? Will Alpha’s fun, attractive, and affirming program (yours for only ten weeks of classes) lead participants to repenting and surrendering their lives to God in such a manner that will secure their eternal destination (1 John 5:13)?

Alpha is missing the mark on so many levels doctrinally, it is tough to cover it all here. Within its pages, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why Jesus had to die in the first place. Sin is described as doing “wrong things” and yet the doctrine of sin is never fully taught, avoiding even the actual word.

What is never explained is that the biblical concept of “sin” is not just about doing wrong, it is about who we are—the motivations of the heart, our inherent sinful nature, and our separation from God. Alpha does not teach about the full nature of God or His attributes, His righteous anger at sin, or that holy justice required a substitution on our behalf. “Gospel light” hardly describes it fully, and one is left with the impression that Christ died because we mess up sometimes and because the universe brings with it some abstract notion of justice in case stuff happens. Alpha does not bring home the reality or the gravity of our sin, the realization that in us is no good thing, and the truth of how God sees us as lost in our sin until we receive (trust) Christ as our Savior. Thus, we can have no confidence in Alpha that it can truly convert people into a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit According to Alpha
Among the fifteen video talks Nicky Gumbel presents throughout the course, of particular interest to discerning Christians are talks number 8, 9, and 10. These talks are shown at Alpha’s distinctive Holy Spirit Weekend discussing who the Holy Spirit is, what He does, and how one might be filled with the Holy Spirit. Manifestations supposedly of God’s Spirit are encouraged during this weekend, even among those who are not yet saved.
Given the background of Alpha’s creators, one can only imagine what experiences might be encouraged. Manifestations such as uncontrollable laughter, lights, shaking, burning, physical heat, gold dust, and shocks have been documented from numerous sources. New Age participants in Reiki therapy and Kundalini Yoga experience the same kinds of manifestations.

A UK apologetics site, in exposing Alpha, had this to say about “strange manifestations”:



Biblically, the Holy Spirit magnifies Christ—but not Himself —but in Alpha, the Holy Spirit sometimes seems to be doing “his own thing.” Some of those who have been involved with HTB and Alpha claim that they have felt a force, or an unseen power, impelling them to do some very strange and even unChristian things, such as laughing uncontrollably. All responsible Christians, at length, must surely question such things in order to evaluate the fruits of a movement.9


So just how long has this deception been brewing, and at what point did Gumbel appear to be introduced to a specific level of supernatural manifestations? On a particular Alpha video, Gumbel recounts the night that John Wimber (founder of the Vineyard Movement) visited HTB church back in 1982, years before the holy laughter movement. At this meeting, there were many “words of knowledge” (supernatural revelations concerning the situations of various people in the room): “Specific details were given, accurately describing the conditions . . . As the list was responded to, the level of faith in the room was rising.” The following account gives more of what happened on Wimber’s visit:



Gumbel says that he still felt “cynical and hostile” until the following evening when he was prayed for: “So they prayed for the Spirit to come . . . I felt something like 10,000 volts going through my body . . . The American (Wimber) had a fairly limited prayer. He just said “more power” . . . it was the only thing he ever prayed. . . . Now we’ve seen many kinds of these manifestations of the Spirit on the weekends. . . . These manifestations and the physical healings themselves are not the important thing . . . the fruit of the Spirit. . . . these are the things that matter, the fruit that comes from these experiences. So we began to realise that God heals miraculously. . . .

Nicky Gumbel gives no indication here that he or anyone else attending that meeting tested the spirits to ensure that everything came from the Holy Spirit.”10


Author and lecturer Roger Oakland offers some insight:



When Vineyard pastor Randy Clarke came to the Toronto Airport Vineyard in January of 1994, he held several nights of meetings and then lit “the fire.” Randy Clarke had received his “anointing” from the “Holy Spirit Bartender” from South Africa, Rodney-Howard Browne.

For years afterwards, the transferrable anointing spread around the world. “It” was also called “it.” Once someone got “it” they were able to give “it” away. “It” was transported to the UK by Nicky Gumbel from the Holy Trinity Brompton Anglican Church in England.11


Benjamin Creme, the New Age guru who has been preparing the world for decades now to receive “The (new age) Christ” actually expressed his thoughts about the Toronto Blessing some time back. What makes this significant is that for the last few decades and continuing today, Creme has had only one job: promoting the one he calls “The Christ”—Lord Maitreya. Also back in 1982, he took out pricey full-page ads in every major global newspaper announcing in bold headlines that “The Christ is Now Here,” which was quite the jolt to the prophecy student who is versed in what the Scriptures say about a final evil world ruler.

Creme is convinced even today that his “Christ” will communicate telepathically to all citizens of the world simultaneously when his time comes to be revealed. Those practicing mind-altering meditation (such as Yoga or contemplative prayer) are being conditioned to be “vibrationally sympathetic” to receiving such “messages.” (To read more about Benjamin Creme and “Lord Maitreya, read Warren B. Smith’s book False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?) The fact that Creme would have anything to say about a signs and wonders movement within the Protestant Church actually says as much about the church as the guru. But when asked about the Toronto Blessing and what he thought of it, he said it was a good thing, and is . . . “the [same] method being used by his [own] spiritual Masters to soften up Christian Fundamentalists to accept the New Age Christ when He appears.”12 Charming . . . and not just a little alarming.

When we look at the background and what influences the “spirit” behind Alpha, there is every indication that this is not the Holy Spirit of the Bible, who does not ask us to do all kinds of weird and crazy things. We are not to seek visions and dreams or other things typical in Alpha-style hyper-charismatic circles. While some might perceive Alpha’s teachings on the Holy Spirit to be biblical, the problem lies in the clear beliefs and practices of the founder and how it is and has spread throughout the churches in practice thanks to Toronto and Brownsville. The kinds of manifestations that Gumbel promotes have nothing to do with the Comforter leading us into all truth and making us more like Jesus. It will more likely lead the participant into altered states of consciousness and occult practices common in New Age and emergent circles.

Alpha Endorsers
So who are the endorsers of the Alpha program? Probably the most influential supporter of Alpha (at least within the evangelical church) is Rick Warren. Warren was the keynote speaker at the 2014 Alpha Global Conference. For the fee of $190, one could catch him at Royal Albert Hall or get a seat at Gumbel’s church in Brompton (HTB)—remember, the site of the birth of the Holy Laughter movement.

The credibility that Warren lends to Alpha cannot be understated because of his highly popular Purpose Driven movement. And if Alpha was previously found mostly in mainline denominations and charismatic churches, Rick Warren’s backing is going to provide a major thrust for the Alpha course to enter evangelical and even conservative Christian denominations.

In addition, Willow Creek Association promotes and presents the Alpha Course, and on Alpha’s main website, there is information about the various churches that teach the Alpha Course.

A 2016 endorsement of the Alpha Course by Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa’s senior pastor, Brian Brodersen, is going to have a significant impact on many Calvary Chapel and other non-denominational mega churches. Brodersen posted this statement on April 14, 2016 on his Facebook to Nicky Gumbel regarding Gumbel’s new ALPHA film series:



What a FANTASTIC introduction to the new ALPHA film series! Good One @ Nicky Gumbel.13


Something that Calvary Chapel leaders—and all Christian church leaders for that matter—should remember is that the reason the Protestant Reformers were burned at the stake during the Protestant Reformation was because they stood against the errors of Roman Catholicism.

Today, things are quite different. We see thousands of Christian leaders of every sort either sympathizing with or outright promoting ecumenism and working with churches and movements that the Roman Catholic Church is absorbing or seeking to absorb into the fold in the future. The Pope’s and the Vatican’s influence is like a magic spell over many Christian leaders these days, and many have forgotten that judgement of the Living God is upon those who twist Scripture and present a false gospel:



I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:6-12)


A simple question one should ask of Brian Brodersen and other Christian leaders is: “Which version of Jesus Christ is Nicky Gumbel promoting—the Roman Catholic version of Jesus that is eaten and ingested in the Roman Catholic ritual of the sacrifice of the Mass or the biblical Jesus of Nazareth who was sacrificed only once for all time and is now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 10:12) and is NOT being mystically turned into a wafer by a priest to be eaten and ingested (John 6:62-63)?

Well, in actuality, Gumbel, if he chooses to, can simply bounce back and forth like a ping-pong ball, playing to each crowd freely whenever the social context calls for it. With Roman Catholics, he can eat the Eucharistic Jesus, and with Protestants he can point to Scripture, and with charismatics, he can promote excesses and holy laughter and just go with the flow however things take shape. This type of convoluted spirituality escalates confusion to its highest form. This is not Christianity, this is diabolical!

Where Does it Lead?
With each passing year, the Alpha Leadership course becomes more blatant in its rejection of sound doctrine in favor of an ecumenical agenda that will merge seamlessly with the coming world spirituality predicted in the Bible. In 2015, the list of speakers at the Alpha Global Conference should concern every Christian who is a lover of truth: Rick Warren, who we mentioned earlier, Father Raniero Cantalamessa (preacher to the Papal household whose writings are recommended reading in the Guide for Alpha participants), word of faith proponent Joyce Meyer, Archbishop Justin Welby, and several others.

One should note that the Alpha Course is so “user-friendly” and spiritually generic that Roman Catholic leaders accommodate it, embrace it, utilize it, and promote it. It is the unchanged standard Alpha Course. Alpha is compatible with Catholic teaching, but it does not present wholly Catholic issues. It assumes that follow-up teachings will be offered to Catholics and those wishing to become Catholic. And, of course, as we said earlier in this booklet, Nicky Gumbel has met with at least two popes in order to cultivate an Alpha Course that is geared entirely for a Roman Catholic context. Alpha for Catholics is utilized on a global scale.

In fact, the introduction page for the Roman Catholic Alpha Course promotes it this way:



Answering the Call for the New Evangelization
Alpha is a tool for the New Evangelization that is being used by thousands of Catholic parishes in over 70 countries around the world. Alpha creates an environment and opportunity for an encounter with Jesus. As Pope Francis likes to say, it’s a chance for “Jesus to find them.”14

Alpha is without a doubt a great experience of new evangelization.15—Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President, the Pontifical Council for Promotion of the New Evangelization


Would a biblically sound, Gospel-focused program be so accepted and embraced by the Roman Catholic Church? No, because it would be incompatible with the Catholic view of salvation. Alpha markets itself as helping people find truth and find God. If Alpha originally intended to be coy about its true colors, Gumbel removed all doubt at the 2015 Global Conference by revealing its cooperation with Rome:



Ultimately, unity is not doctrinal, it’s relational . . . unity doesn’t mean we’re not interested in the truth! The only way to get truth is through unity!16


But Christian history has proven already that unity is often embraced at the cost of truth, and those who stood alone (like the martyrs) were the ones who made a difference. Truth can bring unity, but unity for its own sake does not lead to truth. That is why Jesus promoted truth and did not commit Himself to the crowds.

Gumbel also expressed the following at the conference:



Unity is not an option—Jesus is still praying for our unity—so that the world will be one.

Unity doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything—disagreement is healthy.

I used to think if some part of the church is different from me, they must be wrong. Now I think, ‘wow, they’re different from me, I must have so much to learn from them!

I have come to love the Catholic Church—If God has given them the same Spirit, who are we to oppose God?

The same Spirit lives in the Catholics, and the Orthodox, and the Pentecostals and the Protestants, even the Anglicans have the same Holy Spirit living within them. That’s what makes us one!

We live in a divided world that demands a united church.

Root of all problems in the world is division. Paul gives us the answer to this—it’s in relationships!17


No, Mr. Gumbel, the root of all problems in the world isn’t division. Jesus said He came to cause division—division between truth and error. The root of all problems in the world is sin, which separates man from God. And the only way to get truth is through the Word of God. Subjective and experiential Christianity is guaranteed to leave one walking in step with the apostates on the broad road to destruction.

The Bottom Line
The church today, using unnatural (and unbiblical) growth methods and programs, has grown into an unnatural institution, with perverse and unsound doctrines, combining paganism with Christianity and compromising any bits and tidbits of truth. The Bible indicates that true church growth comes from “the washing of water by the word” (see Ephesians 5:26-27). Only as we cleanse ourselves of false doctrine while washing in the pure doctrine of God’s Word can we experience the natural growth that God intended.

The Alpha Course fits perfectly into today’s emergent “progressive” culture with its experiential mysticism and its ecumenical merging of all faiths, starting with Rome. We won’t be surprised next to see Alpha for Muslims. It is also a front for Toronto-blessing-style hyper-charismania and Latter Day Prophet lying signs and wonders antics. Even if people find some truth in it, there is enough poison to render it harmful to the body as a whole. Even if a solid church can find a way to present it with their own solid teaching, why bother? If we need so many books to explain the Bible, how are we any different from the various cults today?

The bottom line with Alpha is this: Can Christians who love the Word and their Bibles be comfortable with, or even need, a program that is—



Written from the Church of England/Anglican perspective?

Written and taught by a man who brought us holy laughter and the Brownsville Revival?

Teaches Catholics the same course as Protestants and urges them to stay in the church they are in?

Is ecumenical to the core?

Promotes an incomplete theology of the Cross and atonement?

Promotes New Age/hyper-charismatic manifestations claiming they are of the Holy Spirit?

Teaches Kingdom Now Theology/Dominionism?


If you or your church are using the Alpha Course, or are considering using it, please prayerfully consider what you have read in this booklet.

To order copies of  The Alpha Course— An Evangelical Contradiction, click here.

Endnotes:
1. http://alpha.org.
2. http://www.gotquestions.org/Anglicans.html.
3. Alpha Course’s Gumbel Invites Vineyard UK Founder Eleanor Mumford & Furtick, Hybels to Leadership Conference http://www.donotbesurprised.com/2013/02/alpha-courses-gumbel-invites-vineyard.html.
4. http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_alpha_course.html.
5. Ibid.
6. “Nicky Gumbel Interview Transcript” (The Guardian, August 28, 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/28/religion-christianity-alpha-gumbel-transcript).
7. Roger Oakland, “Alpha and the Pope, http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c25.shtml, quoting Nicky Gumbel from “Alpha News,” March-June 2004, p. 7.
8. “Nicky Gumbel Interview Transcript,” op. cit.
9. http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/ALPHA.htm.
10. Sandy Simpson, “The Dangers of the Alpha Course” (http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/alpha.html; quoting from Session 12 White Alpha training manual ppS8-62/Video V Talk 13).
11. Roger Oakland, “Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and Alpha,” http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c183ccandalpha.shtml.
12. Nick Needham, “The Toronto Blessing,” http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/toronto.aspx.
13. From Brian Brodersen’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PastorBrianBrodersen/posts/822581941179918.
14. Alpha For Catholics, http://us.alphausa.org/Groups/1000042056/Alpha_Catholic_Context.aspx.
15. http://alphausa.org/catholic.
16. Nicky Gumbel, “A Vision for a United Church,” at the 2015 Alpha Leadership Conference; https://lc17.alpha.org/2015-talks.
17. These quotes are taken from a Letter to the Editor: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=17458.

To order copies of  The Alpha Course— An Evangelical Contradiction, click here.









			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
11 STATES SUE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PUSH BACK AGAINST MANDATE TO ALLOW MALE STUDENTS IN GIRLS’ RESTROOMS
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

11 STATES SUE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PUSH BACK AGAINST MANDATE TO ALLOW MALE STUDENTS IN GIRLS’ RESTROOMS



SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/26/11-states-sue-obama-admin-to-push-back-against-mandate-to-allow-male-students-in-girls-restrooms/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







(Reuters) — Officials from 11 U.S. states sued the Obama administration on Wednesday to overturn a directive telling schools to let transgender students use bathrooms matching their gender identity, decrying the policy as “a massive social experiment.”



Ramping up the simmering battles over contentious cultural issues in America, the states, led by Texas and most with Republican governors, accused the federal government of rewriting laws by “administrative fiat.”



“We are willing to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told reporters in Austin.







Amid a national debate on transgender rights, President Barack Obama’s administration on May 13 told U.S. public schools that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice, upsetting Republicans and paving the way for fights over federal funding and legal authority.



The states’ lawsuit accused the federal government of overstepping its constitutional powers by taking actions that should be left to Congress or individual states. It also challenged the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law with regard to sex and gender.



The lawsuit said the administration “conspired to turn workplace and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”



Texas was joined by Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, plus Arizona’s Department of Education and Maine’s governor.



Paxton said, “It’s about parents who are upset, grandparents who are upset. They want to see that the safety of their children is taken care of.”



Transgender rights advocates argued it is transgender people who need protection, particularly transgender women who are disproportionately the victims of assaults and would be forced to use men’s bathrooms if states succeed in forcing people to use bathrooms matching their sex at birth.



Likewise, transgender men, many of whom grow facial hair, would be required to use women’s bathrooms along with girls.



“This action puts students at risk for the sake of politics,” said Alison Gill of the Trans United Fund advocacy group supporting transgender rights.



Gill said the states’ lawsuit did not reflect the position of most school boards and administrators.



The administration’s letter to the schools said that to get federal funding under existing rules, schools must agree not to treat students or activities differently on the basis of sex. That includes not treating transgender students differently from others of the same gender identity, officials said.



‘UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK’



Paul Castillo, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, said the lawsuit represented an “unprecedented attack against transgender people across the United States.”



“These states are demonstrating the great lengths they will go to in order to discriminate against transgender individuals,” Castillo said.



Nine of the 11 states that sued have Republican governors, including Maine’s Paul LePage. LePage broke with the Democratic attorney general, Janet Mills, who did not approve of the lawsuit, a spokesman for Mills said.



School districts from Texas and Arizona also joined the suit, which names the U.S. government and a host of federal agencies and officials as defendants.



North Carolina sued the federal government on the transgender bathroom issue this month, seeking to protect its state law passed in March that bans people from using public restrooms not corresponding to their sex assigned at birth.



Ever since the 1960s civil rights movement, the federal government has asserted its authority to force states to extend equal protection under the law for all. The administration sued North Carolina on May 9, stating that its transgender bathroom law violated the U.S. 1964 Civil Rights Act.



The 11 states’ lawsuit accused the administration of taking that argument too far and improperly, widening the scope of interpretation of civil rights law.



Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and activities. The administration’s interpretation is that the word “sex” extends protection to transgender people, but the issue has not been settled in the courts.



“I agree with the Obama administration that ‘sex’ includes ‘gender,’ and ‘gender’ includes ‘gender identity,’” said John Pagan of the University of Richmond’s School of Law in Virginia.



Peter Lake of Stetson University College of Law in Florida said the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of the meaning of “sex” under the law, but in recent years lower courts have been more likely to defer to the Obama administration’s broader definition.



“My sense is a certain momentum is building for broader protection of (LGBT) rights, and we might be seeing a moment of federal civil rights law in long-term transition,” Lake said.



The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.



______________________________________________________



Transgender Policy: Texas + 10 other States SUE Obama Administration!

































			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
CHINESE COMMUNISTS STEP UP ATTACKS ON CHRISTIAN CROSSES
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						













CHINESE COMMUNISTS STEP UP ATTACKS ON CHRISTIAN CROSSES 



BY STEVE BYAS



SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/23260-chinese-communists-step-up-attacks-on-christian-crosses; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







In his letter to the churches in Galatia, the apostle Paul admitted that the cross of Christ is “offensive” to non-believers. It stands as a challenge to all human efforts to establish a heaven on Earth, without God. To tyrants such as the communists of China, it poses a challenge to their efforts to maintain a totalitarian regime, dictating every aspect of life.



In Zhejiang Province, which is a center of the Christian faith in China, the destruction of Christian crosses atop church buildings is seen as perhaps just the beginning of a newly intense persecution of the followers of Jesus Christ. Agents of the government even used blowtorches to cut down a 10-foot high cross atop the Salvation Church in the town of Shuitou. Ten miles away, in Mabu, other agents of the totalitarian regime sawed off a cross on Dachang Church.



Several other villages in Zhejiang Province have seen the destruction of crosses in the government’s latest assault upon Christianity. This persecution is not new, as the communist dictator Mao Tse-tung launched an assault upon Christians from the day he announced the establishment of the so-called People’s Republic of China in 1949.



Last year, the Voice of America (VOA) reported that the Chinese government had forced the closure of Huoshi Church, forcing the church members to worship in homes. Pastor Su Tianfu told VOA, “The church is disallowed to organize any events. Many of our fellow workers are given no freedom because they’re either under the watch of [agents] outside their doors or followed wherever they go.” Su has been targeted by the local police, interrogating him up to 10 hours at a time.



During the past two years, the communist regime has destroyed crosses from an estimated 1,200 to 1,700 churches.



What is the motivation for this anti-Christian frenzy? President Xi Jinping, the dictator who leads the Communist Party oligarchy that rules China, gave a speech recently, offering his explanation for the destruction of Christian crosses and other persecutions against Christians. Xi warned that “overseas infiltrations via religious means” were a threat to the ruling Communist Party. Accordingly, all religions in China are ordered to “Sinicize,” or become “Chinese,” which, of course, means, become part of the communist system.



It is believed that many of the lawyers in China who raise the issue of “human rights” are Christians, and that they are undermining the authority of the party. A significant number of the dissidents in China have explained that Christianity teaches that rights are God-given. Sadly, many American Christians are unaware of this key element of our Christian heritage. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, his words linked the concept of natural rights to God Himself. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” President Barack Obama, in contrast, has quoted the words of the Declaration, deleting the words, “by their Creator.”



Even President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address in 1961, acknowledged this as the “revolutionary belief” upon which the American government was founded: “The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”



It is estimated that there are now about 60 million Christians in China, with some attending churches “registered” by the government, but with many others, maybe half or more worshiping in “unregistered” house churches. All may soon find themselves in the crosshairs of a new anti-Christian wave of persecution by the communist government. Fan Yafeng, a legal scholar in Beijing, predicts that what is happening in Zhejiang “is a test.” If the regime sees it as a “success, it will be expanded.”



Chinese apparently like to adorn their church buildings with bright red crosses. In Shuitou, half of these crosses have been removed, with the other half expected to be removed as well.



The present campaign began two years ago, with the demolition of a church in Wenzhou, alleging the church had not followed proper building permit procedures. Faced with the likelihood of their church being razed, church officials of the Salvation Church reluctantly took down the cross over their church building. Some parishioners were losing jobs, and facing other forms of persecution.



Christianity has always been a target for atheistic communism. It is seen as an impediment to the march of communism to world domination. And not only official communists despise the Christian faith. One might recall “progressive” Democrat candidate Obama’s dismissive comments that Christians “cling to their religion.” Secularists often seek out Christian businesses to force them to do things contrary to the owners’ Christian faith. We regularly hear — in this country — that churches need to pay taxes, for example. But in 1819, the Supreme Court opined that the power to tax necessarily involved “the power to destroy.”



American Christians do not yet face the type of persecution endured by their Chinese brothers and sisters in the faith. But as secular progressives gain more sway in the United States, we can expect increased attacks upon the ability of Christian churches to operate. In Edmond, Oklahoma, for example, a few years ago, a man actually filed suit against a church’s cross, located on their own property. The man told the judge that the cross “offended” him as he drove by it on his way to work each day. Fortunately, the judge dismissed the case, advising the man that if the cross offended him that much, perhaps he should take a different route to work.



In China, Yang Mushi, a Christian pastor, offered some perspective to the destruction of crosses, specifically, and communist persecution of the faith, generally. “Throughout church history, pressure from the outside has only made the gospel spread more and more. This is because the gospel is not contained in a visible structure. Tears may be in our eyes today, but we can also see a greater revival coming. What we see is not the end, but a new road leading to a new door.”





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
GOVERNOR FALLIN VETOES PRO-LIFE BILL, GETS PROMINENT GOP POSITION
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:




GOVERNOR FALLIN VETOES PRO-LIFE BILL, GETS PROMINENT GOP POSITION 



BY C. MITCHELL SHAW



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. Recent events in Oklahoma seem to prove that adage. Governor Mary Fallin (shown) — having just days ago vetoed a bill that would protect the lives of the unborn in the Sooner State — has been appointed to one of the most prominent positions in her party. The woman who squandered a golden opportunity to stand for one of the chief planks of the GOP platform will now serve as as co-chair of the 2016 Republican National Convention Committee on Resolutions, commonly known as the Platform Committee.



The announcement — in the form of a press release from the GOP — came Tuesday just after noon and reads in part:



Today Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus announced the leadership of the 2016 Republican National Convention Committee on Resolutions, commonly known as the Platform Committee.



Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming will serve as Chairman of the Committee. Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma and Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina will serve as Co-Chairs.



And:



“It is my privilege to be serving on this Committee,” said Co-Chair Fallin. “We are going to honor the will of Republican voters everywhere and write a platform that articulates the solutions America needs after eight years of a sputtering economy, more debt, out of control government, and a foreign policy of leading from behind.”



While such an announcement would usually be greeted with a sense of state pride, many in Oklahoma are unable to muster much in the way of anything positive. Governor Fallin's office informed several conservative members of her own party in the state legislature on Monday that she was “too busy working on the budget to discuss” the revisions they were willing to propose to anti-abortion bill S.B. 1552, which she had just days before vetoed, saying it was too vague and would not stand up constitutionally.



As The New American reported previously:



Regarding Governor Fallin’s assertion of the ineffectiveness of this bill, one wonders why she chose to outright veto it, instead of proposing changes to make it more acceptable. In fact, not only did she not propose any changes, she refused to discuss suggested changes that were brought to her.



Blair took the bill and Governor Fallin’s press release to Liberty Counsel to seek advice on its vagueness. He was told by the legal team that it was not vague; however, they revised the wording to make it possibly more palatable to the governor. Blair then took the revision to Senator [Nathan] Dahm [the senate author of the bill], Representative David Brumbaugh [author of the house version of the bill], Representative Dan Fisher, Senator Joseph Silk, and others, who then tried repeatedly on Monday to contact Governor Fallin, only to be told by her office that she was “too busy working on the budget to discuss the bill.”



As The New American also reported, S.B. 1552 would have essentially ended abortion in Oklahoma:



According to the official website of Oklahoma’s state legislature, SB 1552 would consider abortion “unprofessional conduct," and would revoke or prohibit the licensing, or renewal of a license, to doctors performing the procedure. It could also result in a punishment of up to three years in prison for those doctors who choose not to comply.



Fallin, who had known about the bill from the beginning and pledged to support it, instead surprised everyone by vetoing the bill on Friday — only one day after it was overwhelmingly passed by the state legislature. As mentioned above, she claimed that the bill was vague and that “doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother.'” What Fallin's statement ignored is that renowned attorneys had said that the bill was not vague and at least one of them had agreed to defend the bill for free if it were challenged. As we said then:



However, in a shocking turn of events, the state’s self proclaimed pro-life governor vetoed the measure, claiming that it was unclear and lacked the ability to effectively end abortion. “The bill is so ambiguous and vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,’” Fallin said in a statement. She added that she instead supports a “re-examination” of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision of the Supreme Court allowing women the “right” to an abortion. “In fact,” said Fallin, “the most direct path to a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court.”



As perplexing as it is to the general public that a “pro-life” governor dismissed the opportunity to, for the most part, end abortion in her state, it is even more perplexing to a smaller segment of Oklahoma’s population that was convinced of her approval. Governor Fallin was not only made aware of the intent of this bill in October of last year, but was also in favor of it at the time. A statement released by Protect Life and Marriage OK reveals,



[A nationally renowned attorney], along with a group of pastors and legislators, met personally with Fallin last year in an hour long meeting in her board room at 10 am on October 8, 2015. The meeting was a success as the purpose was to inform the governor of this strategy and secure her promised support if the bill got to her desk.



One of that “group of pastors” was Paul Blair, who is the founder of Protect Life and Marriage OK. Blair is also a candidate for the Oklahoma State Senate. In an exlusive interview with The New American, Blair expressed his dismay over not only Fallin's veto but also her unwillingness to dialogue with those members of her own party about her concerns. He also questioned “the timing of this appointment,” saying:



We have no idea why the Governor, for the first time as Governor, vetoed a pro-life bill, but the timing of this appointment makes you wonder. Under her leadership, our state refused to enact strong pro-life legislation. The current Republican platform is strongly pro-life and pro-family. Is Governor Fallin's appointment a sign that those values are changing?



One thing is clear about the governor's priorities: Her elevation to a prominent position in the party is of greater importance to her than is protecting the lives of unborn Sooners. And one is left to wonder if Fallin was meeting with party leaders — either in person or by phone — when she was “too busy working on the budget to discuss the bill.” While the selection process for the "pro-life" Platform Committee had obviously been going on for some time, and it is not likley that this is a direct quid pro quo, where there is smoke, there is usually fire.



That the very woman who refused to stand up for a bill representing one of the major planks in the GOP's party platform could then say, “We are going to honor the will of Republican voters everywhere and write a platform that articulates the solutions America needs,” should give not only Oklahomans, but all Republicans, cause for concern.



Considering that Rolling Stone reported on May 20 that the first new abortion clinic since 1974 in the state plans to open in Oklahoma City next month, Fallin's lack of moral conviction in refusing to stand by S.B. 1552 may not only allow abortion in the state to continue, it may actually allow it to increase exponentially.



As state legislators consider their options for overriding Fallin's veto, perhaps they should consider that they will likely drive right past that new abortion clinic if they don't. As Michael Sawyer, Oklahoma field coordinator for The John Birch Society — a constitutionalist organization well known for its pro-life stance, and the parent organization of this magazine — told The New American, “This is a perfect storm for ending abortion in Oklahoma. Any legislator who wants to be seen as truly pro-life has a golden opportunity by overriding Governor Fallin’s veto. Those who don’t will be telling us all something about themselves.”



Those legislators have an opportunity to stand where Fallin fell. As Protect Life and Marriage OK's motto says, “Legally, we can. Morally, we must.” Here's hoping the state legislature is listening. Because Governor Mary Fallin certainly isn't.



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
PAUL RYAN THE RINO?
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





Ryan the RINO?



BY CHARLES SCALIGER



SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23242-ryan-the-rino; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:









Is Congressman Paul Ryan a RINO — Republican in name only? Or is he instead a committed champion of the conservative agenda in his role as speaker of the house? The following article sheds light on how conservative Ryan actually is by surveying his public record, including key votes he has cast.







For months, GOP insiders in Washington have been watching the Trump campaign with bated breath, hoping against hope that one of their own could blunt the brash billionaire’s momentum. As rival after rival fell by the wayside along the electoral trail, the GOP establishment considered another tack: draft a Washington insider unsullied by the mudslinging of this electoral primary season, and send him into the fray on a figurative white charger to unite the party faithful and cast out Trump and his insurgent legions. The choice for a white knight, to the GOP establishment, was clear: Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the mild-mannered, consensus-building congressman from Wisconsin, known far and wide as Mitt Romney’s 2012 vice-presidential running mate.







Ryan, as it turned out, was not interested in the job of Trump-spoiler, and returned to his thankless duties in the House. In characteristically cautious form, he declined to utter the sort of scathing condemnations of Trump that have contributed to the rift between the Trump camp and the rest of the GOP. But neither did he offer his support.



The plot thickened when, after the Indiana primary, Senator Ted Cruz, Trump’s only viable remaining rival in the primary race, withdrew, leaving Trump the presumptive candidate. Once again, Ryan was in the spotlight, with the media and GOP allies wanting to know if he was willing to endorse Trump now that he was likely to be the GOP nominee. Ryan replied, in his usual tactful but telling way, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.” He added that he considered the primary responsibility for unifying the GOP to rest on Donald Trump.



The Trump campaign responded with characteristic bluntness when asked at a rally whether it hurt to have the leader of the Republican Party withhold his endorsement of Trump. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski pointed at Trump and said, “That’s the leader of the Republican Party.”



Within a few days, however, the Trump campaign adopted a more conciliatory posture. Donald Trump began making the rounds in Washington to seek support from the GOP establishment he had so recently reviled — including GOP presidential candidates he had slighted. Among others, he met with Paul Ryan — and both men emerged from the confidential meeting committed to mending fences. While not yet ready to offer his endorsement, Ryan expressed optimism that Trump and his supporters would find much common ground with GOP conservatives, among whom Ryan numbers himself. “We will have policy disputes. There is no two ways about that,” Ryan told the press. “The question is, can we unify on the common core principles that make our party? And I’m very encouraged that the answer to that question is yes.”



Coming from Paul Ryan, a statement such as this is a signal on behalf of the Republican establishment that they are open to welcoming Trump into their ranks. But of Ryan himself — in contrast to Trump — Americans know little, outside of his vice presidential candidacy and his rise to the House speakership to replace John Boehner last fall. Unlike Trump, Paul Ryan’s life has not played out on national television, and his personality is devoid of the flamboyance that has made Trump a folk hero and media star. But within the Beltway, Paul Ryan, as the ranking member of the House of Representatives, wields an enormous amount of power. His gavel can set the agenda by determining which bills get debated, which issues get a hearing, and which spending projects get priority. Once upon a time, when the letter of the U.S. Constitution was still respected, the speaker of the house — as the leader of the body that holds the purse strings — was the most powerful figure in Washington. And like every other member of the House, Paul Ryan’s career and voting record speak for themselves.



Cruising Through Congress



Paul Davis Ryan was born in 1970 in Janesville, Wisconsin, at the same time that Mitt Romney, his future presidential running mate, was a newlywed student at Brigham Young University. Although he was a high-achieving student and athlete, Ryan’s youth was marred by the death of his father, whom Ryan discovered dead in his bed from a heart attack when he was 16. He went to college at Miami of Ohio to major in economics and political science. There, a libertarian professor, Richard Hart, introduced him to the writings of Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. Hart also acquainted Ryan with National Review, William F. Buckley’s magazine that served as the mouthpiece for the conservative and neoconservative establishment.



Thanks to a recommendation from Hart, Ryan secured work as a summer intern with Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten (who at last reckoning had endorsed Donald Trump and become a member of Trump’s foreign policy advisory team).



After graduation, Ryan stayed on in Washington, first as a legislative aide to Senator Kasten and later (after Kasten’s 1992 loss to Russ Feingold) as a speechwriter for the conservative advocacy group Empower America. Jack Kemp, one of the founders of Empower America, became Ryan’s mentor during that time. In 1995, Ryan signed on with Kansas Senator Sam Brownback as legislative director, where he worked for two more years before returning to Wisconsin.



By 1997 Ryan, a fifth-generation Wisconsinite, had decided to represent his home state in Congress. He ran successfully for office in 1998, when he was elected representative in Wisconsin’s First District at the age of 28. At the time of his inauguration, Ryan was the second-youngest member of the House.



Two years after his election to Congress, Ryan married a tax attorney from Oklahoma named Janna Little, and the two have subsequently produced three children.



In his 18 years in the House, Ryan has become known as a consensus builder to his allies and a saboteur of limited government to his detractors. This electoral cycle, he faces a strong primary opponent in businessman Paul Nehlen, a flamboyant Tea Party endorsee and Trump supporter who has portrayed Ryan as complicit in the decline of Wisconsin’s manufacturing base.



Ryan’s legislative record is a mixed bag, to say the least. Once an ardent student of Ayn Rand and von Mises, Ryan seems to have retreated more than a little from the ideals of limited government and free market capitalism he once wholeheartedly espoused. Ryan’s Freedom Index score, as tabulated over the years by The New American, is a tepid 58 percent, earned in no small measure because of his fondness for big spending bills — conservative campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.



Fresh in constituents’ memories is Ryan’s supporting vote for last December’s H.R. 2029, a gargantuan omnibus appropriations bill that authorized $1.15 trillion in spending for fiscal 2016. Included in the measure were a whole host of sops to congressional Democrats, such as continued funding for President Obama’s 2012 amnesty for illegal aliens, amnesty that allowed for illegal aliens to receive work permits and access to federal entitlements. Also included in the bill was funding for refugees from the Middle East and funding for Planned Parenthood, the abortion provider recently caught red-handed attempting to traffic in body parts from aborted babies. In all, the bill raised discretionary spending by five percent over the previous year.



No sooner was H.R. 2029 passed than Ryan began lobbying members of the House Freedom Caucus — many of whom did not support his candidacy for speaker — to garner support for still more big spending envisioned for fiscal 2017 and beyond. In February he met behind closed doors with members of the caucus, and encountered stiff resistance to his plans.



Much of the rancor directed at Ryan was in response to his infamous compromise with Democrats in 2013 to lift the “sequester” caps on government spending, in place since 2009. That effort, a collaboration between Ryan and Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), one of the most liberal Democrats in Washington, opened anew the floodgates of spending and debt that had been kept mostly shut since the depths of the Great Recession. The so-called Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 did not reduce government spending, but instead hiked spending dramatically, and, while no new taxes as such were levied to pay for all the new goodies, airline fees were raised dramatically — which amounted to a tax increase, although called by a different name, as many Republican critics of the deal were quick to point out. By jettisoning the sequesters, the House GOP sent a clear signal to exultant Democrats. “[This plan] makes promises to the American people that are false,” Congressman Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) pointed out at the time. “Today the Democrats realized they were right all along, that we would never hold the line on the sequester.”



That deal, which effectively ended what little fiscal discipline Congress had managed to impose on itself in the wake of the Great Recession, was a major reason for skepticism among Freedom Caucus members about Ryan’s candidacy for speaker. And with the passage of H.R. 2029 (otherwise known by the unwieldy name of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016) under Ryan’s leadership, their skepticism was borne out.



Ryan is best-known legislatively for his advocacy of such omnibus big-spending bills, but he has also supported a wide array of other measures that are just as objectionable on either fiscal or constitutional grounds. In October 2015, Ryan voted in support of H.R. 1314, which eliminated the debt ceiling until March 2017, and also raised caps on discretionary spending for 2016 and 2017. This piece of legislation, essentially a continuation of the sabotage of sequesters and the debt ceiling begun with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, did little to endear Ryan to his more conservative GOP House colleagues.



Ryan voted on two separate occasions in June of 2015 to support Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, also known informally as “fast-track authority”), a measure that would give the president sole negotiating authority over foreign trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),  and would limit congressional oversight of such deals to an up-or-down vote on their entirety. Such authority, a popular panacea for Beltway gridlock, amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of authority from the legislative to the executive branch. In the name of streamlining trade negotiations, many in Congress, including Paul Ryan, are apparently willing to cede to the president the authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” as provided for in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. But perhaps this is not too surprising in light of the many other legislative powers granted Congress in that same section — such as the power to declare war — that have been in effect delegated to the executive branch.



In April 2015, Ryan, along with a large majority in the House, voted in favor of H.R. 1731 (the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015), a measure that strengthened the already considerable unconstitutional powers of surveillance given to the Department of Homeland Security. In this case, the Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity Communication and Integration Center was designated the sole federal agency to handle information on alleged cybersecurity threats to public and private networks. As Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) pointed out on the House floor with reference to this and another allied cybersecurity bill, “These bills violate the Fourth Amendment, override privacy laws, and give the government unwarranted access to the personal information of potentially millions of Americans.”



In March of 2015, Ryan voted along with a large bipartisan House majority in support of House Resolution 162, a nonbinding resolution that called on the president to provide military support for Ukraine in its territorial squabble with Russia. This resolution endorses unconstitutional foreign aid — another type of usurpation that has become routine since the post-World War II Marshall Act — and also seeks to involve the United States in yet another overseas conflict that, simply put, is none of our business. While not technically unconstitutional, enlisting the energies of the United States to take sides in foreign conflicts (or “broils,” in the preferred Jeffersonian terminology) was routinely condemned by the Founders as unnecessary and unwise. As late as 1820, no less a founding eminento than John Quincy Adams famously reminded his countrymen (some of whom were eager for the United States to take sides in Greece’s war of independence against the despotic Ottoman Empire) that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” This counsel, unfortunately, has been utterly set aside by American politicians since the mid-20th century, resulting in a seemingly unending loss of American life and treasure in defense of one vaguely defined overseas military objective after another.



Along similar interventionist lines, Paul Ryan voted in June 2014 in opposition to Amendment 51 to H.R. 4870 (the Defense Appropriations Bill), an amendment that would have prohibited any funds from that bill to be used in support of Syrian rebels. Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), who introduced the amendment, warned the House that it was impossible to tell friend from foe in the Syrian War, and that weapons sent to supposed “good guys” could easily end up in the hands of extremists. In point of fact, Fortenberry’s (and others’) misgivings have proven prophetic; since the middle of 2015, Syrian Kurdish militias backed by the U.S. military against ISIS have advanced into the Aleppo area — bringing them into direct and repeated conflict with CIA-backed “moderate” Syrian Arab militias fighting the Assad regime. Yet Paul Ryan, along with a House majority still convinced America ought to take sides in the Syrian conflict, voted down Amendment 51.



Ryan also voted against two other amendments to H.R. 4870, Amendment 52 (which would have barred the transfer of military surplus material such as armored personnel carriers, aircraft, drones, and grenade launchers to local police forces) and Amendment 56 (which would have sunsetted the Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] in December 2014, when all U.S. military personnel were slated to be withdrawn from Afghanistan). By opposing both amendments, Ryan went on record, along with the usual majority of his colleagues, in supporting the militarization of America’s local police and the open-ended executive authority to wage war contemplated by the AUMF.



Nor are these recent votes unique. Back in May of 2012, for example, Ryan (along with the usual House majority) voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have ended the unconstitutional practice of indefinite military detention for those suspected of terrorist activities. The previous month, Ryan voted in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which gave private corporations legal protection in return for sharing customer data with the government, effectively wiping out consumer privacy and ignoring the Fourth Amendment.



Ryan’s affection for big spending bills did not originate recently, either. In May of 2009, when the nation was still reeling from the Great Recession, Ryan voted in favor of H.R. 2346, a mammoth supplemental appropriations bill to provide $96 billion in additional taxpayer dollars, above and beyond what had already been spent that fiscal year, for the undeclared wars in Iraq and Syria, $10 billion in unconstitutional foreign aid, and $2 billion for flu pandemic preparations.



Even as a junior congressman, before the world-altering events of 9/11, Ryan’s voting record was already spotty, with votes in favor of unconstitutional government pork such as education grant programs (H.R. 2, October 1999) and foreign aid (H.R. 2606, August 1999), as well as mandatory background checks for buyers at gun shows (H.R. 2122, June 1999), to name but a few lapses.



At the same time, Ryan has been fairly consistent in his support of key “social conservative” issues, such as the right to life. In April 2000, for example, he voted in favor of H.R. 3660, which would have banned partial-birth abortions.



By all accounts, Ryan is a personable, decent family man with strong religious convictions and a tremendous work ethic. However, he is less than consistent on many issues — ranging from foreign aid to government spending to the growth of the domestic police state — with strong constitutional implications. His is very much the voting profile of a “big government conservative” in the tradition of Beltway neocons who have always been selective in their professed reverence for limited, constitutional government.



In view of his record, Ryan’s recent votes and willingness to accede to key agenda items of the Democratic Left should be surprising to no one. Whether he can learn from his many staunch constitutionalist colleagues in the House — such as Justin Amash and Raúl Labrador — and become something other than “John Boehner with better abs,” as one of his colleagues recently styled him, remains to be seen.





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
“THE DANIEL PRAYER” BY ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ: A BOOK THAT WILL MOVE YOUR CREDIT CARD, CHANGE YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, & LEAVE YOU DOCTRINALLY BEWILDERED
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

The Daniel Prayer_2.indd







“THE DANIEL PRAYER” BY ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ: A BOOK THAT WILL MOVE YOUR CREDIT CARD, CHANGE YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, & LEAVE YOU DOCTRINALLY BEWILDERED 



BY BUD AHLHEIM








Released on May 10, 2016 Anne Graham Lotz’s latest book is sure to make its mark in the “Christian” publishing market.  The reasons for this are twofold.  The book is authored by someone with the evangelically hallowed name of “Graham,” which itself is enough cause to prompt the Biblically-astute to cast a discerning eye.  Secondly, in the world of “Christian” publishing, false “prophets” create genuine profits.



Already LifeWay, the media arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, is pushing this unscriptural nightmare on the unsuspecting and the undiscerning with an introductory offer priced at $16.99.   (Which is exactly $16.98 more than I paid on Amazon for Ronnie Floyd’s The Power of Prayer and Fasting, overpriced though it was.  Perhaps, if enough true Christians avoid Lotz’s latest lamentable tome, it too will rapidly sink to the deserved obscurity that Floyd’s achieved.  Lotz will, by the way, be on hand at the LifeWay exhibit at the upcoming SBC annual meeting.)



The Daniel Prayer is a mess, and a dangerous mess, at that.  Lacking any pervasive Scriptural logic, unless contemplative, egocentric mysticism counts, the tome seems borne mostly out of an overly mystical, decidedly anthropocentric form of American Christian theology, with the emphasis being on “America,” not “Christian.”  That such a system could be even considered “theological” is erroneous since it gives mere lip service, not strict adherence, to Scripture, elevates man’s desires far above the plans of God, and promotes its tenets with the underlying theme that America is the new Israel.  Lotz perpetuates this fallacious theology throughout the text.



The subtitle of the book, Prayer That Moves Heaven And Changes Nations, highlights an apparent denial of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God that remains consistent throughout the book.  In the Bible of Lotz’s world, it seems, the lessons of Old and New Testaments hide a secret from all but the most mystically-devout and experientially spiritual.  However, knowing those secrets give us the power to dictate actions for heaven to achieve.  Done the right way, with the right sincerity, in the proper location, and “in Jesus’ name,” our success should be seen as nearly guaranteed.



Lotz proceeds to unpack the secrets that give man the power to make heaven “respond and rally to our cause.” (p.257)  Lotz slathers this endeavor with ill-used Scripture that promises to ensure its certain fulfillment, such as John 14:13-14, “I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”  (Of course, Jesus will save America because, you know, America is His chosen nation!)



Meant to evoke, evidently, Elijah’s fire and cloud, the book’s cover itself is imbued with certain spiritual mysticism.  Flip open to the endorsements.  Those alone should be sufficient to dissuade your purchase, while also triggering discernment tocsins to sound. Kathie Lee Gifford, (Who knew she was such a theological benchmark?) Richard Blackaby (No doubt solidifies the mystical, experiential elements of the text), Gretchen Carlson (Cuz she’ll probably mention it on TV if her endorsement is included) and Ronnie Floyd (Well, the SBC is the largest protestant denom in the nation, and, … oh yeah, StrifeWay … err LifeWay!) and others all offer glowing endorsements.



But it’s the dust jacket biography that gives the most crucial endorsement and it’s one  that should not be obscured to unimportance, either, for it proudly touts what is the fundamental problem with Lotz.  ”Anne Graham Lotz, called ‘the best preacher in the family’ by her father Billy Graham …”  I hope you recognize the huge Biblical problem with this. If not, please refer to 1 Timothy 2:12.



Lotz indeed describes herself preaching on several occasions in the book.  To do something Scripturally and apostolically forbidden, even with the nodding approval of the elder, though erroneous Graham, is an out-of-the-gate disregard for Scripture.  If you can’t obey something this simple, your exposition of other Scriptural teaching should be justifiably suspect.



The impetus for the book (besides the obvious profiteering from false prophet-ing) is little different than others who bemoan the cultural sewer that America has become.  America is losing favor with God, according to Lotz, and that calls for the Daniel prayer.  She proceeds to excise this prayer from the historical narrative of Scripture and promote its modern incantation as a miracle fix for the woes of America.



She identifies “three reasons I believe God’s patience may be running out” with America. (p.19)  These are the continued national tolerance of legal abortion (Yes, it is a horror.); the legislated, governmental attack on marriage (Yes, this too is evil.); and, third, America’s abandonment of Israel.



However, as noted evangelist George Whitefield said, “The sins of the church are far more offensive to God than the sins of the nation.”  And, with this book, Lotz is serving only to contribute further to the sins of the church by misleading the faithful with her fundamentally flawed teaching.



Lotz trots out the prayer of Daniel as the secret weapon to prompt God to act according to our noble desire to save America.  It worked for Daniel and Judah, and since America is implicitly also chosen by God, such prayer will work for us too.  The only problem with Lotz’s presentation of the miracle working prayer cure recorded in Daniel, however, is that it was not his prayer that caused heaven to do anything.  (If God’s plans are not foreordained and are awaiting our input, folks, we’re in an eternity of peril!)



Daniel found himself at a time in history when Judah was under God’s judgment, captive in Babylon.  But this captivity had been prophetically proclaimed, as was Judah’s eventual release, long before the actual events took place.  In other words, while Daniel’s prayer represents Judah’s contrition and plea for release, the divine plan to do just that was already in place.  God’s plan was unfolding, and Daniel did not cause that.  (Nor will this prayer’s incantation today do so for America, FYI.)



Disregarding not only the flow of prophetic history in the Old Testament, the book exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding, and mishandling, of Scripture.  Lotz proclaims throughout it a consistently high view of man (and herself) with a correspondingly low view of God.  Coming from the richly endowed Arminian pedigree of her father, it is not unexpected that Lotz would have such a view.



Early in the book, she commends herself for her own salvation. “The most important commitment I have ever made has been to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.” (p. 27) While that sounds laudable, the presumption that man chooses God thus prompting God to act is persistent in the text.  (Important Biblical truth … we do not change God’s mind, and, please, pray whatever prayer you can that we never will!)



The book, in fact, is decidedly more about Lotz and her heaven moving prayer experiences than one might find palatable for a book that purports to teach believers about actual Biblical prayer (It does not do that, I assure you.)  By my count, 997 times over the course of ten chapters, comprising 260 pages (excluding preface, appendix, and quotes from Scripture), she uses the pronoun “I,” or about 100 times per chapter.



Lotz lauds herself for everything from choosing God, to knowing Scripture, to using prayer successfully, to getting messages, and “messengers,” from God, to understanding prophetic messages from the news.  (You remember the 276 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria?  Yep.  There were also 276 souls on the ship at the time of Paul’s shipwreck.  God explained this to Lotz and her daughter at the time of the kidnapping.  She failed to explain what the coincidence meant, but perhaps a forthcoming “Lotz on Divine Numerology” book will explain.  Please swipe that credit card again, and put your Bible away.  You won’t need it.)



Soteriologically, Lotz denies faith is a gift from God.  Chapter four opens with an encounter she had while on a Fox News panel.  A co-panelist, Rev. Jonathon Morris, had “remarked that faith was a gift that he was grateful God had given to him.”  Hearing this thoroughly un-Graham-compliant comment (Yet absolutely Biblically correct, even for a priest of the apostate Roman church), Lotz plots to correct him.  “I knew that if I had the opportunity to address what I felt could lead to a misunderstanding, I needed to take it.  A few moments later, I was able to emphasize that faith is a choice.”



(Well, so much for correcting misunderstanding there, Anne.  Instead, she exhibited her own fundamental misunderstanding of Scriptural truth in what could have been a great witness opportunity to a woefully deceived disciple of anti-biblical Roman theology.  What’s that verse about the blind leading the blind?)



Faith is most assuredly a gift from God.  To deny this is to deny clear Scriptural teaching.  Jesus says inJohn 6:65, “And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”  Those words “come to me” mean “have faith in me,” and that capacity is “granted…by the Father.”  Paul repeats the same truth in Ephesians 2:8,  “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”



(FYI, if you equate “faith” with an act of your “conscious will power,” here’s a clue … you don’t have faith.  You have choice, driven, however nobly, by your fallen nature … and there is nothing salvific about it.  “We love him because he first loved us.”  1 John 4:19)



Not failing to capitalize on the opportunity to encourage someone to choose God (despite Paul’s pithy Old Testament quote in Romans 3:11 that “no one seeks after God”), Lotz includes the miracle inducing prayer of instantaneous salvation , a/k/a “the sinner’s prayer,” for readers to recite after their own personal selection of God.  (Yes, I’ll take Jehovah for eternity, Alex.)  



Including the critical words “Thank you for inviting me to enter into a covenant with You,” Lotz’s version of the patently unbiblical supplication goes on for three paragraphs in the book, since, apparently in written form, you can be a bit more verbose than when performing the salvific, evangelical ritual at a Sunday morning altar call (Folks gotta get to Cracker Barrel, ya’ know.  Better move on with it!).  



Following the required signature and date lines for any written, and duly uttered, sinner’s prayer, Lotz, presumably donning her pastoral preaching garb, proceeds to issue absolution to the reader.  “Praise God!  You have entered into a permanent covenant with the living God!  You are eternally secured!”  (pp. 102-103)



(Look.  Please. If you are basing your faith on a prayer like that, even with the perhaps false absolution given you by a pastor, do as Paul exhorts, “Examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith.”  2 Corinthians 13:5.  If that prayer’s all you’ve got, chances are you’re not really saved.)



At one point in the text, Lotz promotes a universalistic notion, one not unfamiliar to her father who infamously touted on Robert Schuller’s “Hour Of Power:”





“I think everybody that that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the body of Christ. And that’s what God is doing today. He’s calling people for ‘eh, out of the the world for his name whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world uh they are members of the body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but uh they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have and they turn to the only light that they have. And I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.”





Lotz somewhat echoes her father’s words.  “The good news is that God truly loves you and me.  He is always on the side of His children – Jews, Gentiles, Palestinians, Americans – whoever will come to Him by way of the cross through faith in Jesus Christ.”  Propounding the Biblically-erroneous notion that “we’re all God’s children,” Lotz at least emphasized faith in Christ, but, then, her notion of “faith” is one you create, you maintain, and merely prompts God to act in response.  God’s uninvolved until you do something.



(Is it any wonder that assurance of salvation is so lacking in the modern church?  Assurance built on my mustered up sincerity of faith is a woefully treacherous foundation on which to build eternity.)



The book is rife with lots about Lotz, and not merely via her epic use of the first person pronoun.  Scriptural promises, are heavily narcigeted to become specific promises for Lotz.  Far beyond merely twisting something like 2 Chronicles 7:14 to be about America (she does that, too, on page 61), she engages texts of Scripture by personalizing them for herself, her friends, and her family.  Indeed, it seems that for any promise of Scripture, somewhere in the divine mystery of bestowing blessings, God meant that promise specifically for Lotz too.



Consider the episode described in chapter six when Lotz engaged in prayer for a friend who’s husband had undergone open-heart surgery.  She received a text message, which itself was imbued with mystical meaning – “I could never remember receiving a text message from her before this one” (Well, she was in a hospital with her husband, after all, an environment not all that conducive to an audible conversation, perhaps).  Failing to abide by the unwritten “texting in kind” rule, Lotz called the woman anyway.



She asked to pray for the lady and her husband over the phone (who hasn’t done this?) but noted that “I had no idea what to pray for or how to enter into what they were experiencing, but I knew God knew and that as I prayed, He would give me the words.  And he did.”  He did, by giving her words that almost any of us who have ever prayed for, or with, someone in a similar circumstance probably also used – for God to guide the work of the doctors, that God’s peace would be known, and that health would be restored.  For you and me, this may be a no-brainer.  But for Lotz, God intervened to tell her what to pray.



This episode continues a few pages later when Lotz reveals the power of claiming the promises of Scripture, this time for her friend’s husband.  “As I prayed, Psalm 73:26 came to mind, which promises, “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.’  So I claimed that promise in prayer for her husband.  Within the week, he was released from the hospital to continue his recovery at home.”    (Asaph, that Psalms author, had open heart surgery?  I didn’t know that.  Look, this whole “promise claiming” technique, especially on behalf of others, is rather sketchy when you actually look at Scripture … just so ya’ know.)



Lotz states, numerous times in the tome, that God does speak to her.  Sometimes it’s that “impression” speech which God uses.  Other times, of course, it’s the “still, small voice” He employs.  “I seemed to hear God whispering to my heart, Anne, you don’t have to fast anymore.  I will give you a baby.  You will have a son.”  This was the encounter of divine conversation with God early in her marriage when she followed “Hannah’s example” in Scripture to get God to give her a child, specifically a son.  (Perhaps in an act of disobedience, though, Lotz did not name the child Samuel.)



The book gives two criteria for prayer.  The first is that every prayer – the Daniel prayer included – must be sincere.  It’s very hard for God to refuse a sincere, impassioned prayer.  Now, while our prayers absolutely should be sincere, that sincerity does not, as Lotz implies, add an iota of power to our supplication.  (FYI, the power of prayer is not actually IN the prayer; it is in the One to whom we are praying.)  We should be sincere because to approach God in any other manner is tantamount to cavalierly mocking him.  Additionally, we should approach God in prayer with an accompanying sense of awe and reverence, as well as with obvious humility.



The second criteria is that, in order to have the greatest “heaven moving, nation changing” effect, prayer should be uttered in private.  You can disregard that apostolic instruction to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) if you really want powerful, effective, call-fire-from-the-sky kinds of prayers.  Those only happen when issued in private.  “If we want to pray in such a way that heaven is moved and nations are changed, we must have a secret prayer chamber.”  (p. 68)



Lotz seems to be referencing Jesus’ instructions when He taught the disciples how to pray.  Erroneously called “the Lord’s Prayer” (it couldn’t be that, for Jesus could never utter a prayer asking for forgiveness;  see John 17 for the epic, authentic, “Lord’s” prayer), Jesus says, “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.  And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”  (Matthew 6:6-8)



Jesus’ point here is not the locale of the prayer, but the condition of the heart issuing it.  Whereas the Pharisees would offer prayers to be heard by those within earshot of them (“they have received their reward”), Jesus teaches the humility of sincere prayer that reflects the genuine relationship of the believer speaking with the Father.  And, oh, Jesus reminds them, don’t forget that “your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”



(Kinda makes you wonder how “our” prayers will “move” heaven if God already knows what’s goin’ on. Well, what could be the point of prayer then?  Oh, to bring me into alignment with God’s will … I remember now.  Plus, He likes to hear our prayers.  Oh yeah, we’re also told to.)



For Lotz, having an “experience” is important.  Experience is proof.  Experience is evidence.  Despite the fact that Jesus said, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”  (Matthew 16:4), Lotz encourages her readers to seek experiences as proof of God.  “Ask Him to give you experiences,” she tells readers because “that will help to build your confidence in Him.” (p.110)  Rather than pointing the doubtful to Scripture, Lotz falls back to the present “spirit of the world” and encourages mystical, experiential, emotionalism as evidence of God’s truth.



(Well, I guess if I had to create my own faith, it’s only fair that God prove Himself worthy of it by doing something experientially impressive for me, right?)



Several remarks by Lotz in the book seem to brush dangerously close to open theism, suggesting that God doesn’t quite know what will happen, but will actively intervene if things seem to be going providentially amiss.  Lotz recounts the story of Moses and Pharaoh, noting, finally that “God stepped in and took charge,” (p.117) as if He’d been an otherwise hapless, powerless onlooker.   She remarks that “God saw Gideon’s potential,” God knowing that “if Gideon depended on Him alone and went forth in His power, he would indeed be a mighty, victorious warrior.” (p. 197)  (Be all that you can be and God might take notice of you too, like He did Gideon … and Anne.)



As any reader familiar with Lotz of late might expect, she does, in this book, promote the heresy known as “circle praying,” a technique borne out of Wiccan witchcraft.  Citing the same mystical, non-biblical character of Honi touted in Mark Batterson’s magnum opus of Scriptural malfeasance, The Circle Prayer, she endorses and uses the heretical technique.



Prior to a preaching commitment, Lotz, suffering from diverticulitis and in a panic about the upcoming event, wrote that, “I reminded God, as though He had forgotten, that the platform I used in our revivals was a round platform, centered in the arena, anchored by a podium in the shape of an old wooden cross.”  (Well, gee, that sounds like it’d be about as effective as shaking a lucky rabbit’s foot in one hand and an upturned horseshoe in the other at God, but … slathering circles in Christian-ese doesn’t make them any more Scriptural either.)



Besides the mystical empowerment of circle prayer, Lotz engages in other supplication maneuvers that, while drawn out of the narrative of Scripture, are not Scripturally-prescribed for the believer.  Putting out a fleece, either figuratively or, as Lotz has done, literally (she implies), will not prompt God to give you a sign.  The “Hannah prayer” did not, and will not, prompt God to give you a son. The “whispers of God” that she often hears during her contemplative prayer encounters, or the various divine “messengers” God uses to give her answers, are unsubstantiated with the actual teachings of actual Scripture.



Lotz does not fail, in this text, to address the increasingly popular evangelical topic of spiritual warfare.  An entire chapter, “The Daniel Prayer Is A Battle,” deals with the devil.  “When we pray the Daniel Prayer, the devil will work feverishly to make certain Heaven remains unmoved and nations remain under his grip.”  (Really?  How’s he do that?)  “But while he is more powerful than we will ever be, we have the authority over him in Jesus’ name.”  (Yep, brace yourself.  We’re gonna start binding the devil.)  “Which is one reason, when I pray, I always pray in Jesus’ name.  He is the one who gives me access into the presence of God and authority over my invisible enemies.”



Citing the apostle, and following with her own attempted interpretation of the Ephesians armor text, Lotz says that Paul “gives us clear instructions on how to fight the devil.”  Yet she engages the Scriptural text from a completely misunderstood premise.  Paul explains clearly in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, that the spiritual battle of the believer is against the strongholds (ideas, philosophies, religions) that imprison the world in unbelief.  The war for the believer is a war of the mind.  It is a battle over how people think, which is why a clear presentation of the Gospel is needed.  As “the power of God for salvation,” the Gospel is the truth through which God has chosen to save those whom He will.  Spiritual warfare is not, as Lotz presents, a mystical endeavor.  Besides, the genuine believer is eternally protected from the wiles of Satan, since Jesus made that very request of the Father in His high priestly prayer (John 17).



But Lotz teaches that “the hiss of that old serpent, the devil himself, who slithers up and sows suggestions in my ear, trying to undermine my confidence in God” is a reality for the believer.  Folks, it just ain’t so.  The genuine believer is prone to fleshly desires, doubts, and temptations, but if faith is from God, instead of by personal choice, the assurance, both of forgiveness when we fail and of eternal protection, is certain.  But, not for Lotz, who says,



“So I just call him out.  I rebuke him with the authority I have been given as a child of God.  I claim the blood of Jesus to cover me and shield me from his vicious insinuations and accusations.  Then I firmly rebuke him and command him to leave as I keep on praying until I prevail in prayer.”  (p.252)



(Umm, there is so much that is theologically aberrant, and Scripturally unfounded in that quote that, if she’s encountering that kind of demonic turmoil in her prayer life, the last thing she needs is the Daniel Prayer.  It might be more helpful if someone tied her to the bed before her head starts spinning!)



It’s instructive to note the words of Scottish Reformer John Knox in consideration, though, of Lotz’s seemingly ongoing battle with the evil one.  “I have never once feared the devil, but I tremble every time I enter the pulpit,” he wrote, indicating the awesome responsibility of rightly handling the Word of God – an endeavor that might just give Lotz less bouts of demonic interruption if she’d do it as well.



Returning to the “let’s pray and save America” theme, Lotz’s epilogue exposes further her misunderstanding of the world itself.   “When it comes to our nation, we may think the real battle is with a political leader or a form of government or corporate greed or the purveyors of pornography or the abortionists or radical terrorists or the school board or the city council or whatever obvious, visible enemy we can name.  While those are unquestionably real problems, the truth is that they are being manipulated by our adversary,” the devil.



Actually, when it comes to the world, they aren’t simply being “manipulated” by him, they belong to him.  Jesus said, in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.”  The apostle John reiterated this in 1 John 5:20,  “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”  Based on Scripture, then, it seems likely that the world will behave just about like it is.  We probably shouldn’t expect sinners to act like saints.



Here’s the truth about spiritual warfare.  It doesn’t happen out there in the world.  The world already – temporarily – belongs to the enemy.   Instead, spiritual warfare happens in churches.  It happens in pews.  It even happens in pulpits.  It happens every time a false teacher or a false teaching goes unchallenged by believers, allowed to “creep in” the fellowship of Christ’s followers, and tolerated until those once subtle deceptions and falsehoods blossom forth into alleged truth.



This is precisely what the cumulative nonsense of The Daniel Prayer represents.  It’s the fruit of falsehoods, born of poor – or no – doctrine or theology, and ought to be utterly rejected by the true church.



This book is an epic of errors and a danger to doctrine.  In the words of spiritual warfare, you might consider this false fodder to be a grenade of experiential mysticism, “prove-God” emotionalism, and man-exalting theology tossed at what will be, no doubt, a craving crowd of eager, Biblically-illiterate, discernment-free, contemplative-prone “Christians.”



Please, avoid this book and stay on the narrow path.  Read the Bible. Think.  And please, please … pray without ceasing.  Your prayers may not save America or stop abortion or insure the sanctity of marriage, but they will show your obedience to His Word.  Besides, our Father wants to hear YOUR prayer, not Daniel’s.  He’s already heard that one.









			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
VINEYARD CHURCH BIFFS IT ON LGBTQXYZ AND COMMUNION
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

Major Charismatic Denomination Biffs It On LGBTQXYZ and Communion



BY ALAN MARICLE



SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/05/24/major-charismatic-denomination-biffs-it-on-lgbtqxyz-and-communion/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







If we can give some segments of the charismatic Christianoid world credit for anything, it’s their history of standing firm against the acceptance of the invasion of a militant homosexuality in our culture and the church. Dr. Michael Brown, a well-known figurehead of the charismatic movement, and popular author and writer at CharismaMag, has been very outspoken about this issue. Brown debated self-described “gay Christian” Matthew Vines, one of the leading false teachers of “gay Christian” theology, in which he stated:





When Moses wrote that it is an abomination for a man to have sex with another man, he didn’t add, “unless they’re committed to each other long term.”





Brown was a major leader in the Brownsville Revival, a counterfeit revival within the Assemblies of God. However, another major denomination, Vineyard USA, who broke away from the Calvary Chapel in the 80’s, has taken a very interesting position on sodomites in the Church. In a position paper, titled Pastoring LGBT Persons, put out by the denomination states the following regarding Communion:





Paul’s exhortation to the Vineyard today would be to discern the body, and to make sure to include everyone Christ includes. This means that drug addicts and alcoholics that haven’t kicked the habit, gays and lesbians that haven’t left the lifestyle, and divorced adulterers that are still with their mistresses are all welcome at the table if they sincerely desire to turn toward Jesus and place their lives under the faucet of God’s grace. What better place is there to go for someone trapped in sin and deceived by its sickness than the table of our Lord?





I don’t know about you, but I can think of a better place to go for someone like that – flat on one’s face in humble repentance at the foot of the cross.



This document, thus titled, was ostensibly intended to teach how to pastor people who choose to self-identify by their preferred sex partner(s) (rather than, say, as a follower of Jesus Christ). Already we have a problem – Vineyard USA is implicitly granting one of the premises of the gay agenda. Since the gay agenda has experienced such success in our culture as to make it common parlance, however, we shouldn’t make too much of this, though it represents a missed opportunity. There are bigger fish to fry, though.



Vineyard USA plays with fire as they explicitly endorse open communion, meaning that non-members can partake of the Lord’s Table whenever everyone has taken a break from experiencing anointed worship rolling around on the floor, making animal noises, and laughing uncontrollably. The Lord takes abuses of the Lord’s Table celebration pretty seriously, given His words in 1 Corinthians 11, but this position paper barely scratches the surface in giving proper warnings. Following a quote from John Wesley, the paper states:





The only fitness required is “…a sense of our utter sinfulness.” No other moral qualification is demanded before receiving communion.





This is errant Lord’s Table theology, but it points to something more fundamental and damnably dangerous. This is a paper about how to pastor LGBTQXYZ people, in a segment designed to teach how to handle communion with such folks. We must ask: How would the leadership of the church know that so-and-so is gay and living the gay lifestyle? The only way to know would be that the person has made it known, right? If the leadership were unaware, then this section (and indeed, the whole paper) is unnecessary and inapplicable. If they don’t know, then they just allow anyone to approach the Table (and let his blood be on his own head) and that’s that. But we are talking about whether known gay people can approach the Table.



Let’s grant hypothetically that God does not in fact bring down special wrath on those who take the Table and yet are in knowing and deliberate sin. When you know that someone is living in blatant rejection of the Word of God (for example, by living the gay lifestyle and identifying as such) but they want to come and take the Table anyway, that’s the problem – you are letting them pretend to be Christians, reconciled to God, in a very real and obvious way, when in fact they stand under His wrath and are not reconciled to God. You’re aiding and abetting their self-deception. Where is the call to repentance? Where is the sharing of the Gospel? How will they know they can be set free from this slavery, this captivity? The Lord’s Table is a spiritual reality that creates unity among the Body of Christ, and all Vineyard requires is a sense that one is a sinner? How about a hatred for sin that is an infallible product of the new birth?



Let me try to have some compassion here – I don’t want to pretend that it would necessarily be emotionally easy for a same-sex couple to break up. They have a twisted definition of love, yes, but their affections they have mistaken for love can doubtless be a strong emotional bond (though based on lies). The emotional angst produced in such a way would qualify as a trial and tribulation. What someone in a true biblical oversight role should do in this case would be to remind the person that such difficulties are meant to create perseverance and endurance: James 1:2-4, Romans 5:3-5. It’s meant to make them like Jesus and indeed serve as evidence of their salvation: Romans 6:11-18, 1 Peter 2:16, 2 Peter 1:10.



Also, while it may be emotionally trying to break up with one’s partner (whether a partner in same-sex or in heterosexual immorality), it’s not actually that hard. It’s unambiguous – move out. Call them to repent as you have done. If they won’t repent and are a temptation, stop seeing them. Block them on phone, Facebook, etc if necessary. This is a one-time event that is then perpetuated by staying away from that person.



But this paper gives no mention of how to actually shepherd these folks, but rather it jumps straight into a discussion of Lord’s Table theology without getting into the real nitty-gritty. Glaring and obvious matters which were definitely visible in this culture of death by 2014 are conspicuous by their absence. What does repentance look like? How can the person kill their sin consistently? How should they self-identify to other people, since calling oneself by one’s sinful propensities is inappropriate and unbiblical? Must they stop going to bars, being promiscuous, having gay sex, etc? What if they have been living together and they need to find other living quarters because they want to start actively hating their sin? What about transgender stuff? What about transvestism? What about same-sex couples that have adopted children?



That sort of content would be really helpful for the folks who call themselves LTBQXYZ. It’s a shame that a so-called “position paper” mostly serves to lead astray on such an important matter, when they expend so much energy on making sure they have big fancy sound systems and stages so their “anointed” heroes can attract thousands to hear gibberish they mutter into the microphones without an interpreter present.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
STRANGE FIRE PENTECOSTAL OUT OF BETHEL CHURCH, REDDING, CALIFORNIA ATTACKS JOHN MACARTHUR
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





STRANGE FIRE PENTECOSTAL OUT OF BETHEL CHURCH, REDDING, CALIFORNIA ATTACKS JOHN MACARTHUR 



BY JEFF MAPLES



SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/05/25/strange-fire-pentecostal-out-of-bethel-redding-attacks-john-macarthur/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







Recently an interesting Youtube video surfaced featuring John MacArthur speaking about his appearance at a Conference in Latin America, in which he stated,





the people in the Hispanic world know about Jesus Christ, they know about the Bible, they know about God, they know about salvation, at least in some ways. They have Biblical terminology, because of the impact, historically, of the Roman Catholic church. But they don’t know Christ. And they don’t know the Gospel of Grace. And they don’t know the full revelation of Scripture.





As you know, adherents to strange fire theology (Pentecostals, charismatics, etc.), already dislike MacArthur, because MacArthur has thoroughly exposed their sickness for what it is–a rampant disease that spreads like cancer.



Here to set the record straight, however, is one of Bethel Redding’s shining stars, and denominational swinger, Brandon Showalter. Showalter, the former Mennonite, Anglican, Assemblies of God…and Baptist is a musician whose melodies are inspired by the Holy Spirit…no really, he actually said that. Perhaps we should be putting his melodies in the canon of Scripture right under the Psalms?



Anyways, Showalter pens this (satire?) piece in the Christian Post, lambasting MacArthur, and claiming that Hispanics actually do know Christ because the Pentecostals have been there rescuing them from Catholicism. He states:





Ignoring the well-documented explosion of Pentecostalism in Hispanic nations, Pastor John MacArthur believes that people in the Spanish-speaking world do not know “the true gospel.”





Let’s be clear, Showalter is correct that Pentecostalism has been dominating the religious scene in Latin America, and as a matter of fact, in many areas Pentecostals now outnumber Roman Catholics. But what he fails to recognize is that what he thinks he’s defending, he’s only refuting. He states,





While is it indisputably true that the Roman Catholic Church has historically dominated the religious landscape in Central and South America, many scholars have noted that Pentecostalism has undergone a remarkable rebirth in the past several decades. According to a 2012 report from the U.S. State Department, approximately 43 percent of Guatemalans, for example, now identify as Protestant.





Well, according to another Pew Research poll, the vast majority of these so-called “true gospel”-bearers actually cling to the highly heretical Word of Faith theology–the “Prosperity Gospel.” As a matter of fact, up to 91% of professing Christians in Latin America hold to this false belief system–the system that’s so closely tied to Pentecostalism he’s defending. Shouldn’t Showalter be thanking MacArthur for ignoring that?



This comes as no surprise, though, since Bethel Church is one of the leading proponents of Prosperity theology. The Prosperity Gospel teaches that you can gain material wealth and health as a result of your faith, and if you don’t experience these things, your faith isn’t strong enough.



We recently wrote about Bethel Music’s influence in the Christian-speaking world, and how their ideology permeates the vast landscape filled with church-goers and those who believe they’re glorifying God with flesh-feeding music filled with bad theology. MacArthur has criticized the contemporary Christian music movement, specifically Jesus Culture, also out of Bethel Redding, for being dangerously close to blasphemy while seducing the believer away from biblical truth. He states in response to one of their songs, Fill Me Up,





…that doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity, nothing to do with God. In fact, I’d be afraid to put my mind in neutral and start yelling out loud with that kind of sensual music saying “fill me up, fill me up, fill me up” among a group of non-believers, who would go from being kind of normal non-believers living in the kingdom of darkness, to being demon-possessed.





MacArthur is right, this doesn’t have anything to do with God. In fact, the vast majority of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the true Gospel. This pathetic attempt by Showalter to discredit MacArthur is most certainly biased and well-deserving of scrutiny. His obvious attempt to defend his denomination’s fireplay should be followed up with a resounding “uh…no.”



While MacArthur has been exceedingly strong in his stand for biblical truth, sound theology, and discernment, Showalter is profiteering from MacArthur’s statement to advance the acceptance of aberrant theology and those denominations that subscribe to it. Essentially what he’s saying is, “Hey, we’re Christians too, ya know!” But in reality, the vast majority are not. Cults desire acceptance among Christians. The Mormons tried it through Glenn Beck. The Seventh Day Adventists tried it through Ben Carson. And the Charismaniacs will continue to push for it..through their music and emotionally captivating experiences. Sadly, many have bought into it.



MacArthur is right. The people in the Hispanic world largely do not know the true Jesus of the Bible. They know a false Jesus. They know both a Roman Catholic Jesus or a Word of Faith Jesus. Very few know the Jesus that saves the wretched, the poor, and the needy. They don’t know the Gospel of Grace. And they most certainly don’t know the full revelation of Scripture.



They know Strange Fire.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
LOUISIANA SENATE COMMITTEE REJECTS BILL PROTECTING PASTORS WHO DECLINE TO OFFICIATE “GAY WEDDINGS”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

LOUISIANA SENATE COMMITTEE REJECTS BILL PROTECTING PASTORS WHO DECLINE TO OFFICIATE “GAY WEDDINGS” 



BY HEATHER CLARK



SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/25/louisiana-senate-committee-rejects-bill-protecting-pastors-who-decline-to-officiate-gay-weddings/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:







BATON ROUGE, La. — A Senate committee in Louisiana has rejected a bill that would protect pastors who decline to officiate same-sex “weddings,” asserting that the move would be discriminatory.



“As sexual liberty is elevated, we don’t want religious liberty to take a back seat and be pushed off the cliff,” said Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City, who introduced the legislation in March.



“A legally recognized church or faith under state or federal tax law or regulation, or a religious organization … may not be required by the state to solemnize a marriage, nor provide access to facilities, services, accommodations, goods, or privileges of the church, faith, or religious organization for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of the marriage, if the actions would be contrary to church doctrine, practice or in violation of the religious beliefs and principles of the clergy, church, or religious organization,” H.B. 597 reads.







The bill only relates to the solemnization and celebration of marital unions, and does not relate to any other aspect.



“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, nothing contained in this part shall be construed or applied in derogation of Louisiana’s tradition of tolerance of all people,” it states.



The New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau expressed opposition to the measure, opining that if the bill were passed into law it could affect tourism in Louisiana.



“The only way to put it is, this is a human and civil rights issue as well as a major economic issue,” said chief executive Stephen Perry, according to the Times-Picayune. “It’s about the brand of Louisiana as a tolerant, open place. In our business, which is a multi-billion-dollar perception business, we’re concerned about the potential negative impacts…”



He had originally worked with Johnson to tweak the language of the bill, but ultimately decided to oppose the proposal. Johnson says he was not informed that Perry intended to object to H.B. 597 during Tuesday’s hearing.



“We worked with Mike in the beginning and we felt that it would help cure some of the perception issues. As it turns out, it did not,” Perry said. “As things have become hypersensitive, and particularly in the national business environment, we realized the core part of the bill did … really did absolutely nothing. So we were very concerned about the brand of Louisiana.”



The two Democrats who voted against the bill also asserted that it would allow churches to decline to marry interracial couples. Johnson said that concern was unfounded.



“The whole purpose of the bill was to prevent the state from taking any adverse action against a member of the clergy, church or religious organization merely for abiding by their sincerely held religious beliefs,” he stated. “I’m not aware of any religious tradition in this state that is opposed to interracial marriage. I certainly don’t know any clergy who would refuse to do that.”



Sen. J.P. Morrell, D-New Orleans, opined that the legislation is unnecessary.



“You have the Religious Freedom Act, which already protects this broadly,” he stated. “We’ve got a homeowner afraid of a robber. You’ve armed him with a knife and a gun, and now we’re going to give him a bazooka.”



But Johnson remarked that he believes homosexual advocacy groups will eventually seek to force clergy to officiate at same-sex ceremonies, finding declination to be an act of discrimination.



“They’ll be coming after ya’ll; it’s just a matter of time,” he warned after the bill was voted down 3-2.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	


			  

					1
2
3
…
6