As America Has Become More Secular, It Has Become Less Free~Why freedom in America is threatened as never before.



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

Here is something any honest person must acknowledge: As America has become more secular, it has become less free.

Individuals can differ as to whether these two facts are correlated, but no honest person can deny they are facts.

It seems to me indisputable that they are correlated. To deny this, one would have to argue that it is merely coincidental that free speech, the greatest of all freedoms, is more seriously threatened than at any time in American history while a smaller-than-ever percentage of Americans believe in God or regularly attend church.

The United States became the freest country in the world, the sweet land of liberty, the recipient of the Statue of Liberty, the country whose flag freedom fighters around the world have often waved. This freedom was rooted in the deeply religious nature of its founding ideals. America was founded by God-centered individuals to be a God-centered country. The claims that America's founders were mostly deists and that America was founded to be a godless secular society are not true.

Some of the Founders were not orthodox Christians, i.e., they did not believe in the Christian Trinity or in the divinity of Christ. But none of them were deists (with the possible exception of Jefferson). Deists believed in a creator God who was not only uninvolved with his creations, but he also did not even know them, let alone care about them. After creating the world, the deists' God abandoned it. The deists' God was Aristotle's "unmoved mover."

Every major Founder (again, with the possible exception of Jefferson) believed in the God of the Bible who heard prayer, acted in history, judged people in the hereafter, demanded ethical behavior, and without Whom morality did not objectively exist. Most importantly, they all believed that in order for a functioning democratic republic not to descend into tyranny, it was necessary to link freedom with God.

Whatever Jefferson's view of God was, he was as influenced by the Bible as every other Founder. He and Benjamin Franklin proposed that the great seal of the United States depict Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt: Moses raising his rod to divide the sea; Pharaoh, in his chariot, overwhelmed by the waters; and the divine pillar of fire that led the Israelites by night. The seal's proposed motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson and Franklin believed that freedom and obedience to God were synonymous. No God, no freedom.

The Founders linked freedom inextricably to God. That is why the inscription on the Liberty Bell is from the Bible: "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof." The verse comes from Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. The Founders knew their Bible. The present adult generation of Americans is more ignorant of the Bible than any in American history. And most young people know even less. I suspect that most students at Harvard could not identify Leviticus, let alone cite any of its verses.

The bell was named "the Liberty Bell" by the abolitionists. Their opposition to slavery was based entirely on the Bible. Their motivating principle, "All men are created equal," came from the Bible. They did not get it from the ancient Greeks, who would have scoffed at such a notion.

Freedom permeates the Old Testament: The Bible begins with the story of Adam and Eve, a story about man's assertion of his God-given freedom ... freedom even to disobey God. The primary story of the Old Testament is the Exodus, a story about God liberating slaves.

For the Founders, the most obvious reason freedom was dependent on faith in God was that only if God is regarded as the source of freedom could men not rightfully take it away. If men are the source of freedom, men can rightfully retract it. This is precisely what is happening today. Freedom is being destroyed primarily by those who scorn the idea that freedom comes from God.

The rule that the end of religion means the end of freedom does not mean that secularism would not be a welcome replacement for totalitarian theocracies such as Iran. But eventually that, too — a secular Iran — would lead to tyranny. Wherever God is delinked from freedom, freedom ultimately withers. When Christianity died in Europe, it was replaced by fascism, Nazism, and communism.

Freedom is central to the Bible. This is especially apparent in America, which until now has linked its unparalleled commitment to freedom to God and the Bible. But freedom is peripheral to leftism. That is why freedom in America is threatened as never before: The foundations upon which freedom rests — God, the Bible, Judeo-Christian values — are threatened as never before.

Every American coin bears two inscriptions: "In God We Trust" and "Liberty." Every generation of Americans prior to the 1960s understood why. Most Americans today, including secular conservatives, do not.

10% of Biden’s Afghanistan Aid Will Go To Taliban~Why are American taxpayers funding the Taliban?



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

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Deborah Lyons, the head of the UN mission in Afghanistan, met with Sirajuddin Haqqani, a wanted terrorist with the Haqqani Network, a Taliban component with close ties to Al Qaeda.

Lyons had served as Canada's ambassador in Kabul when the Taliban carried out a suicide bombing against a Canadian embassy convoy. Lyons put up a monument to the security contractors who were wounded and killed, but they sued after being abandoned afterward.

Sirajuddin Haqqani is a wanted terrorist with a $10 million FBI reward on his head.

“It is impossible to provide humanitarian assistance inside Afghanistan without engaging with the de facto authorities,”  U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned.

The de facto authorities being the Islamic terrorists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The official word is that the Taliban won’t stop the UN humanitarian operations. Whether or not the Taliban will refrain from taxing the UN’s proposed $1.2 billion aid boom is another question.

Without waiting for that question to be settled, Biden has not only kicked in $64 million, but the Treasury Department issued a license for Afghanistan aid which states that it, "will continue to support the continuity of the U.S. government’s important humanitarian-related work in the region", while claiming that "we have not reduced sanctions pressure on Taliban leaders or the significant restrictions on their access to the international financial system."

The Taliban and most “humanitarian” groups in Afghanistan are using the Islamic Hawala system which enables international finance and massive terrorist fundraising at the same time.

And “humanitarian aid” is one of the best ways to fund Islamic terrorists. The Taliban impose an Islamic tithe which American taxpayers will end up paying once the millions in aid arrive.

The Taliban had set up its Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations at least over a decade ago. Much like the old Afghan government, it made few distinctions between for-profit companies and non-profit charities and taxed them both.

When the United States was in control of Afghanistan, USAID and the UN were exempted from government taxes. That was only fair considering that the vast majority of Afghanistan’s money came from USAID and the UN. But the local Afghan “implementing partners” paid taxes to the government and if they did business in Taliban territory, they also paid off the Jihadists.

We don’t know exactly how much taxpayer money went to the Taliban, but one survey found that contractors priced in 20% to 30% from their contracts as payoffs. More formally, the Taliban tend to charge a 10% Islamic tax on income and a 2.5% Islamic wealth tax. While this is modest compared to taxes in some western socialist countries, the only service the Taliban provide is not killing you. That doesn’t require much infrastructure but is really valuable on the ground.

Every charity and humanitarian group has denied paying taxes to the Taliban because it’s illegal. All of them, or almost all of them, are likely lying because otherwise, they’d be dead.

The Taliban had an extensive and sophisticated tax collection network long before they took Kabul which included all the usual elements of bureaucracy, registration, certificates, and assessments. They even have “NGO coordinators” who work with non-profit groups.

As an Economist article noted, "Britain’s Foreign Office had to remind ngos not to pay taxes to the Taliban."

The Taliban at one point provided a list of non-profits that had registered with their Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations. The group “included UN agencies, national and international NGOs and human rights organizations” including those that  “rely on funding from a wide range of sources, including both the UN and the US government”.

That was back in 2013 when the Taliban had far less power and were less intimidating.

It’s a safe bet that nearly every non-profit still operating in Afghanistan is registered with the Commission, and was probably registered in previous years, and is paying off the Taliban.

Even if the UN succeeds in exempting its operations from taxes, the “implementing partners”, local Afghan groups, will still pay taxes to the Taliban. And their employees and those of the groups they fund will certainly be taxed. If the United States funds doctors and clinics, they will be taxed (as they were before the fall of Kabul), if we fund teachers, they will pay taxes to the Taliban, and so will every beneficiary of our “humanitarian aid”.

"We can maintain a humanitarian commitment to... the Afghan people in ways that do not have any funding or assistance pass through the coffers of a central government," Ned Price, Biden’s State Department spokesman, falsely claimed.

Price knows that’s a lie.

Even if the humanitarian aid doesn’t initially pass through the Taliban’s coffers, it will inevitably end up there as it works its way through Afghanistan. Even if we just shipped food and medicines, the Taliban will take its ‘cut’ of the medicine and food as they used to before. They will then be able to dispense it to their supporters or resell it on the black market. Both are common practices for Islamic terrorist groups like the Houthis in Yemen or Hamas in Israel.

That’s why it’s common for there to be a “humanitarian crisis” in terrorist hellholes like Yemen or Gaza. No matter how much aid is sent in, the crisis never goes away because the terrorists not only steal the aid, they deliberately create the crises so that they have more aid to steal.

The only way to stop the crisis is to either kill the terrorists or at least stop sending them aid.

The 10% in the headline is a crude estimate. Any money or aid dispatched to Afghanistan will resonate back and forth through the economy with the Taliban taking a cut at every end. And the final amount will be a whole lot more than the formal Islamic tithe which the Taliban impose.

There is no way to provide humanitarian aid to a terrorist state without funding its regime.

And that will mean difficult moral choices.

When the Great Famine struck Russia as a result of Communist collectivism, the United States undertook a massive aid effort, sending $20 million (a quarter million in today’s dollars) in food aid. The noble effort saved millions and bailed out the Bolshevik regime which showed no gratitude and went on to kill millions anyway. Then it built up a massive nuclear program while plotting to destroy the United States and murder hundreds of millions of Americans.

No one wants to deny aid to suffering people, but when the cause of the suffering is a genocidal enemy regime, subsidizing it only makes things worse. Refusing to provide aid or normalize economic relations with the Soviet Union might have saved far more lives in the long run.

The Taliban won because many Afghans decided to support them or not to resist them. That is a choice that they will have to live with and learn to regret if anything is going to change.

Providing aid to Afghanistan will bail out the Taliban. The more aid we send to Afghanistan, the more powerful, the more secure, and the more aggressive the Taliban’s ambitions will grow. The harder the Taliban have to work to maintain control over Afghanistan, the less scope they will have for terrorism abroad. The more aid we send, the broader the Taliban’s horizons will grow.

Senator Cory Booker foolishly argued that aid is a “strategic leverage that we have over the Taliban.” No, it’s strategic leverage that the Taliban have over us as the Biden administration and the UN negotiate with the terrorists over the right to bail out their vicious regime.

Biden kept falsely claiming that he had to get out of Afghanistan because we couldn’t keep spending money on the failed state. Yet he began sending more money to Afghanistan before all of the Americans he abandoned behind enemy lines had even been evacuated.

After leaving massive caches of weapons and vehicles for the Taliban to enjoy, Biden is dispatching another $64 million, of which millions will likely end up in the hands of the Taliban.

The Taliban will impose their Islamic tithe on the aid that Biden sends to Afghanistan. And taxpayers will be the ones paying the tithe to support the Taliban’s Jihad against non-Muslims.

Americans aren’t just paying taxes to the government, they’re paying them to the Taliban.

Commentary: Has Beth Moore Inadvertently Become a Proponent of Critical Race Theory (CRT)?


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

The CRT lie is that every white person is inherently racist (whether they know it or not) [and in] a “perpetual state of guilt and apology to people of color. . . . It doesn’t matter if they never felt or acted as if they were superior to others because they were white; they are white, and therefore, according to CRT, they are racist.”

By L. Sharp

Beth Moore Background

Beth Moore has been moving away from the Bible for a while now. Lighthouse Trails has documented over the years her becoming a proponent of contemplative prayer, “emergent” doctrine, and ecumenism (most notably with Roman Catholicism).

See link:

Beth Moore publicly announced on March 9, 2021 that she was “no longer a Southern Baptist”

See link:

Recently, on Twitter (July 21, 2021), she decided to vent her frustrations, specifically aimed at the fact 6 Southern Baptist Seminary Presidents had signed a statement in Nov. 2020, declaring that Critical Race Theory (CRT) was “incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message”.

This Nov. 2020 statement was a shift from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) 2019 statement calling CRT “insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes” of societal ills, but could be used as an “analytical tool to aid.” Perhaps her criticism of the SBC has escalated, after the more recent June 2021 SBC Convention, where the SBC shifted very clearly toward non-support of CRT.

BACKGROUND OF SBC’s (Southern Baptist Convention) shifting statements regarding CRT
I thought it would be helpful to give you a background of SBC’s statements the last 3 years regarding CRT.

1) 2019 Statement:

In June 2019, the SBC affirmed the following regarding CRT:
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient [emphasis mine] to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid [emphasis mine] in evaluating a variety of human experiences;

see link:

2) No 2020 Statement:

No SBC Meeting June 2020 (b/c of COVID-19)

3) 2021 Statement:

In June 2021, the SBC affirmed the following regarding “race and racial reconciliation” in the passing of Resolution #2:

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, June 15–16, 2021, affirm the sufficiency of Scripture on race and racial reconciliation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we reaffirm our agreement with historic, biblically-faithful Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in all forms; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we reject any theory or worldview that finds the ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity or in any other group dynamic [emphasis mine]; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we reject any theory or worldview that sees the primary problem of humanity as anything other than sin against God and the ultimate solution as anything other than redemption found only in Christ; and be it further

RESOLVED, We, therefore, reject any theory or worldview that denies that racism, oppression, or discrimination is rooted, ultimately, in anything other than sin; and be it further

RESOLVED, That, understanding we live in a fallen world, we reaffirm the 1995 Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention, which includes, “That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27),” applying this disposition to every instance of racism; [emphasis mine]

see link:

4) Statement Beth Moore tweeted about:

On Nov.30, 2020 this statement was adopted by the Council of Seminary Presidents of the SBC:

“On this twentieth anniversary year of the Baptist Faith & Message (as revised and adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000), the Council of Seminary Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in its annual session, hereby reaffirms with eagerness the Baptist Faith & Message as the doctrinal statement that unites and defines Southern Baptist cooperation and establishes the confessional unity of our Convention. Our six seminaries are confessional institutions, standing together in this classic statement of biblical truth. All professors must agree to teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Baptist Faith & Message. This is our sacred commitment and privilege, and every individual faculty member and trustee of our institutions shares this commitment. We are thankful for the theological commitments of the Southern Baptist Convention, standing against the tide of theological compromise and in the face of an increasingly hostile secular culture.

In light of current conversations in the Southern Baptist Convention, we stand together on historic Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in any form and we also declare that affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.” [emphasis mine]

see these 3 links:


BETH MOORE’S July 21, 2021 Tweet in response to above Nov.30, 2020 SBC Seminary Presidents’ statement—

Here is Beth Moore’s tweet in full:

“I hope to write calmly and clearly this AM. In my estimation, the handwriting was on the wall that this witch-hunt was tragically inevitable when the 6 SBC seminary presidents signed the statement declaring CRT incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message BECAUSE 1) It wasn’t made clear to many what qualifies as CRT & what does NOT. 2) Many people aren’t going to do the homework on how to differentiate between CRT & BIBLICAL priorities of justice & BIBLICAL mandates against injustice. If you don’t think God frowns on injustices committed or blessed by people who claim to belong to him, you simply aren’t reading your Bible. I don’t have to be a seminary president to suggest reading the prophets if you want to know what kind of hell there can be to pay, when we, the people of God, deal unjustly or stand by silently in its midst. 3) Because of 1 & 2, the moment someone preaches, teaches or speaks against racism or injustice, many church congregations, Christian organizations, students & faculty members of Christian universities & seminaries are now primed to see devils behind every bush and holler “CRT!!”

"I beg you to hear me here: godly people are losing their jobs and WILL lose their jobs by the hundreds over this witch hunt for simply teaching Biblical righteousness. They are no more proponents of CRT than they are horned toads. I am not a proponent of CRT but I will not for one-second relent on stating the obvious fact that systemic injustice thrives in America. You have to have a blindfold on not to see it. Believing there is such a thing as systemic injustice does not equal CRT. Brothers and sisters, we are spreading lies and it is harmful and sinful. And there is no lie as binding as the one we are willing to tell ourselves in order to protect our positions and power structures. When the church is driven by fear and lies rather than by love & truth, it may be some kind of church, but it is not Christ’s. I write in lay-person terms.

"I’m not an academic. I’m a Bible studying Jesus freak who loves the church. I’ll inevitably have said some of this poorly. I require a lot of grace and I ask you to look to the heart of it and test the spirit. I have written these things in love and deep concern.”

Here is her July 21, 2021 Twitter thread documenting the above Tweet–


Regarding Beth Moore

1) It is not surprising that Beth Moore is angry towards SBC and their move away from support for CRT. She left SBC, so now she can freely criticize unfiltered. But, why is Beth Moore so angry at these “witch-hunter” SBC Seminary Presidents? Her anger against SBC and their recent stand of non-support of CRT, reveals her lack of understanding of CRT, and her lack of biblical discernment.

2) Lighthouse Trails explains CRT well. So, we don’t have to be confused about what it is all about.

The Lighthouse Trails booklet “Critical Race Theory” points out, on p.6:

Critical Race Theory, which was birthed in the 1980s by lawyers and social activists, has to do with seeing people from a critical perspective as belonging to specific identity groups (e.g. whites, blacks, lesbians, feminists, genders) whereby each group is categorized as either “oppressor” or “oppressed.” It is the creation of “cultural Marxism” wherein the two categories are pitted against the complete overturning of the present system.

Also, on p.7 the booklet goes on to say:

Critical Race theorists believe in institutional (or systemic) racism; that is, racism is so integrated into our American society that “the systems in place [e.g.,capitalism] . . . create and maintain racial inequality in nearly every facet of life for people of color.” Furthermore, they say that all white people, whether they think, talk, or act like it or not, are racist because they are privy to “white privilege” and should therefore be in a perpetual state of guilt and apology to people of color. . . . It doesn’t matter if they never felt or acted as if they were superior to others because they were white; they are white, and therefore, according to CRT, they are racist.

3) Beth Moore complained about the Nov.2020 SBC Seminary Presidents’ statement of CRT being “incompatible” with the Baptist Faith and Message.  She calls this the beginning of their “witch-hunt.” Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “witch-hunt” is: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views (see link:

Is the SBC on a “witch-hunt”? If so, against whom? “Godly” people who support CRT (Critical Race Theory)? In her tweet, Moore basically “warns” the SBC seminary presidents by saying: “I don’t have to be a seminary president to suggest reading the prophets if you want to know what kind of hell there can be to pay, when we, the people of God, deal unjustly or stand by silently in its midst.”

It appears that Beth Moore is accusing the SBC Seminary Presidents of “dealing unjustly” or “standing by silently in the midst” (midst of what? so-called “systemic injustice”?). And, according to Beth Moore, she accuses those men of not reading the prophets properly, because if they did, they would know “what kind of hell there can be to pay” for people like “them.”

Who are people like “them”? Does Beth Moore’s stereotyping of the SBC Seminary Presidents as “them” sound like divisive talk, pitting one group against another? For a self-proclaimed non-proponent of CRT, Beth Moore paints the SBC Seminary Presidents as “them” (the anti-CRT folks), and herself (along with “godly people”) as “us” (who see systemic injustice everywhere).

CRT is an anti-gospel/unbiblical worldview

What Beth Moore does not realize is that CRT, at its core, is an anti-gospel worldview. Why?

  1. CRT is a secular worldview, so it is inherently an anti-gospel/unbiblical worldview.
  2. CRT’s view of sin, humanity and redemption is anti-gospel.  
  3. Sin: According to CRT, humanity’s original sin is “racism”. According to the Bible, man’s original sin is disobedience to God’s command (Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden). See Genesis 3.
  4. Humanity: According to CRT, humanity is ever trying to “better” itself. According to the Bible, humanity (individual people), can never “better” itself. Each person, because of his or her sin, can only turn to God, acknowledging his or her sin and disobedience against Him, and then God alone can restore God’s image in him or her. This is not becoming “better,” but becoming the man or woman God has created him or her to be (according to the Bible and its standard, not humanity’s standards). See Jer.17:9; Psalm 51:5; 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:23; 5:12,19; Eph.2:1-2.
  5. Redemption: According to CRT, there is no redemption. According to the Bible, there is individual, personal redemption in the cross of Jesus Christ. There is individual forgiveness and reconciliation with God (and with each other), through the death and resurrection (and shed blood) of Jesus Christ. God can redeem, and there is hope in His Son Jesus Christ alone and in believing the gospel. See Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 1:7; Heb. 9:14.

More specifically, according to CRT, there are only two groups of people: the oppressor and the oppressed; the victimizer and the victim; the haves and have-nots; the “us” and “them.” But, there is no redemption. There is no forgiveness. There is no reconciliation. There is no end to the “penance.”  The sin is not biblical sin (Romans 3:23), but the sin is “racism.”

The only solution offered by CRT is for the “oppressors” (whites) to pay perpetual “penance” for their “sin” of racism, whether conscious or unconscious, known or unknown.  CRT is an anti-gospel/unbiblical worldview that offers no hope of healing, restoration, or reconciliation (between one another, or with God).

Whether or not you agree with the SBC Seminary Presidents’ most recent statement (of Nov. 2020), they were making a statement of their stance regarding CRT. Did this statement of their beliefs start a “witch-hunt” (as Beth Moore alleges)? Even if that were true, who exactly were the SBC Seminary Presidents searching out and deliberately harassing?

Beth Moore and CRT
Beth Moore seems to be a proponent of CRT (based on her July 21, 2021 tweet), whether she knows it or not. Who is she defending? People of color? “Godly people” who are not opposed to CRT? She already is feeling guilty for America’s “systemic injustice.”  Look at the language in her tweet. She says:

I am not a proponent of CRT but I will not for one second relent on stating the obvious fact that systemic    injustice thrives in America. You have to have a blindfold on not to see it. Believing there is such a thing as systemic injustice does not equal CRT. Brothers and sisters we are spreading lies and it is harmful and sinful. And there is no lie as binding as the one we are willing to tell ourselves in order to protect our positions and power structures. When the church is driven by fear and lies rather than by love & truth, it may be some kind of church, but it is not Christ’s. I write in lay-person terms.

The most concerning statement in her tweet was her insinuation that anyone who does not support CRT is somehow “spreading lies” that are harmful and sinful. And she is accusing such Christians as telling lies, “in order to protect our positions and power structures.”  Sounds like CRT language to me.

She states unequivocally, that it is an “obvious fact that systemic injustice thrives in America. You have to have a blindfold on not to see it.” I agree that this is not necessarily “equal to CRT,” but it is a red flag that she is being influenced by CRT. CRT includes the pre-conceived generalized assumption that “systemic injustice” is already an inherent, structural, societal problem, and categorizes people of color as the “oppressed”, and whites as the “oppressor.” One of the basic assumptions of CRT is a blind belief that “systemic injustice” in whatever form (racism, oppression towards poor, etc.) does exist in society, period. The word “systemic” is used by CRT proponents to indoctrinate people into believing that all social structures and systems in America, are, at their core, full of injustice.

Again, Beth Moore appears to be a proponent of CRT, but doesn’t realize it . . .

What About SBC?

The SBC’s most current statements regarding “race and racial reconciliation” and CRT reveal they still are believing the basic lie of CRT: specifically, they are still “repenting” and apologizing for their history of racism, whether it was conscious or unconscious, aware or unaware. The CRT lie is that every white person is inherently racist (whether they know it or not). The Lighthouse Trails booklet “Critical Race Theory” on p.7, describes this as a “perpetual state of guilt and apology to people of color. . . . It doesn’t matter if they never felt or acted as if they were superior to others because they were white; they are white, and therefore, according to CRT, they are racist.”

Final Comments

Let’s pray that CRT gets exposed as a secular, and thus anti-gospel/unbiblical, worldview.  Let’s pray that those who loyally follow Beth Moore and/or SBC have their eyes opened to CRT as a demonic deception, leading believers down a dark path.

Colossians 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 John 4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Romans 12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

MEDICAL MURDER: Hospitals are killing health freedom advocates by denying them life-saving treatments

Image: MEDICAL MURDER: Hospitals are killing health freedom advocates by denying them life-saving treatments



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

(Natural News) Veronica Wolski, a prominent health freedom advocate, was murdered by Catholic AMITA Health Resurrection Medical Center in Chicago after being admitted there recently for an illness.

Instead of giving Wolski ivermectin like she requested, the hospital forced her into its “covid protocols.” After realizing that these protocols would likely kill her, Wolski begged her friends and loved ones to get her out of there but that, too, was denied.

AMITA forced Wolski to stay admitted as a patient until she eventually died. Wolski probably would have lived had AMITA followed the law and granted her wishes via her power of attorney.

Wolski was perhaps best known for hanging banners from a bridge over the Kennedy expressway in Chicago encouraging people to reject mask mandates and dangerous gene therapy “vaccines” from the government.

“Her hospital stay, along with her death, inspired tremendous support by medical freedom advocates, who called for her to be given suitable treatments for recovery, but also mockery by those who charged her with ‘anti-vaccine disinformation,'” reported LifeSiteNews.

At some point around August 24 following her admission to the AMITA emergency room, Wolski was diagnosed with “covid pneumonia” even though an x-ray suggested that she had “possible chest congestion.”

Since hospitals receive large financial kickbacks for labeling patient illnesses as “covid,” AMITA clearly took advantage of this at Wolski’s expense. And after being declared a “covid patient,” Wolski essentially lost all of her health rights.

“Get me out, get me oxygen, get me medical transport, get security here if you have to, get me out,” Wolski began frantically texting Nancy Ross, her power of attorney, after realizing where things were headed at AMITA.

After Wolski’s power of attorney secured her an ivermectin prescription, AMITA’s “ethics committee” overruled it

Wolski was denied anything and everything by AMITA that could have realistically helped her live. Wolski was denied both ivermectin and IV vitamins, which greatly decreased her chances of survival.

While Ross was successful in securing an ivermectin prescription for Wolski, AMITA’s “ethics committee” ultimately overruled that prescription, leaving Wolski without the remedy she needed.

“We demanded a conference with the ethics committee,” Ross laments. “They met without us. They did not give us a chance to present what we felt was some solid case study on ivermectin and other medicines.”

Even though AMITA’s own admission documents recognize the fact that all patients have the right to refuse or request the medical treatments of their choice, Wolski was effectively denied hers by the hospital.

“We understand if we had informed consent on their position, we could refuse kindly, and say ‘Ok, but we still demand to try this. This is what she wants,’ but this right was somehow not recognized,” Ross says.

“I left the hospital and they called to tell me I was not to come back in, that they would deal directly with Veronica, that she was of sound mind and could make her own decisions, and that they would talk to me on the phone. After that, I was not allowed back in the hospital.”

It was not just ivermectin that was withheld from Wolski, though. A review by the entire medical team that looked into the matter after Wolski’s death found that she was denied “so many options” that could have improved her clinical condition.

Sadly, this type of thing is not exclusive to AMITA. All across the country, patients are reporting similar refusal by medical staff to provide their remedies of choice, including ivermectin. Many of these patients end up dead after being placed on a ventilator, which is basically a death sentence.

To keep up with the latest news about patients who are being murdered by hospitals that refuse to administer ivermectin, be sure to check out

Sources for this article include:

Trick-or-treat? FDA Expected to Approve Pfizer COVID Jab for Children Ages 5 to 11 by Halloween

Trick-or-treat? FDA Expected to Approve Pfizer COVID Jab for Children Ages 5 to 11 by Halloween



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

Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who is also a current Pfizer director, predicted Sunday that the FDA will grant Pfizer’s COVID shot an approval for emergency use in children ages 5 to 11 by the end of October.

In an interview with Face the Nation, Gottlieb said that the Big Pharma company is expecting to have clinical data on its vaccines in young children before the end of September, which will then be filed “within days” with the FDA. He went on to state that the FDA said it then will be a “matter of weeks, not months” to evaluate that data, and then, per his estimates, it would take from four to six weeks for the regulators to green-light the jab for use.

“In a best-case scenario, given that timeline they’ve just laid out, you could potentially have a vaccine available to children aged 5 to 11 by Halloween,” Gottlieb said. He added: “If everything goes well, the Pfizer data package is in order, and the FDA ultimately makes a positive determination, I have confidence in Pfizer in terms of the data that they’ve collected. But this is really up to the Food and Drug Administration to make an objective determination.”

Further, Gottlieb explained that parents, who have “understandable concerns” regarding the use of this vaccine, would have to consult with their child’s pediatrician to determine how to approach the issue of vaccination. Noting that there will be “not a binary approach — do I vaccinate my child or not,” suggesting that he does not view the refusal to inoculate little ones as an option. Gottlieb described some of the details on how a child may be given an upcoming shot: “You could go with one dose for now. You could potentially wait for the lower dose vaccine to be available…. If your child has had COVID, one dose may be sufficient. You could space the doses out more. So there’s a lot of discretion that pediatricians can exercise” depending on the “child’s needs,” per Gottlieb.

Pfizer started testing its jabs on healthy 6-month to 11-year old children just in the end of March, which means that no mid-and long-term side effects of shots could possibly have been studied by now. Also, there is an almost nonexistent chance of young children dying of COVID. Yet, despite these facts, the FDA has seen an enormous amount of pressure from the politicians and a part of the medical community to swiftly approve a COVID shot for children younger than 12.

In the end of August, more than 100 House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wrote to the FDA asking for an update on its timeline for vaccines for children, citing the current “alarming” situation. 

Around the same time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), considered the world’s largest and most influential professional association for pediatricians, and also the largest pediatric publisher, sent a letter to the FDA urging the agency to authorize the vaccine for children under 12 “as swiftly as possible.” To those who believe in the authority of expertise and science, it would also be useful to know that the judgment of the seemingly respectable organization might be marred with a financial interest since Pfizer is a major donor — a fact the AAP tried unsuccessfully to hide.  

Last Friday, seemingly responding to the growing pressure, the FDA issued a statement that reflected that they are “eager” to see COVID jabs available for young children and “eager” to get them inoculated “as soon as possible.” Still, while reassuring the public that “the FDA is working around the clock” to get it done, the body did not provide any timeline on when the approval may be issued.

Sure enough, the FDA also stressed that the evaluation of jabs “will not cut any corners.” However, in the same statement, the regulators also said that the safety data on the possible side effects in children would be based on “at least two months” of follow-ups. Now, assuming that “at least two months” does not mean “a lot more than two months,” that certainly does not sound like no “corners” are being cut. Given the already existing concerns in COVID jabs injuring and killing thousands of people, two months of jabs’ safety data in children does not look sufficient enough to recommend it to some 28 million kids.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Joe Biden’s top medical advisor, said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity. Dr. Fauci is known as a big proponent of the vaccine mandates, so as soon as the shot gets an OK from the federal regulators, it is expected that he will advocate that the schools require their youngest students to get jabbed. Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest in the nation, made such a decision for their students older than 12, who are already eligible for the Pfizer shot.  

In May, the FDA expanded the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to include individuals from ages 12-15. And on August 23, the FDA granted full approval for Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which is yet to make it to the American market, for use by people over the age of 16. 

Biden’s UN Speech an Ode to Globalist Agenda

Greg Kelly: “Joe Biden and the U.N., what could be worse?”

Biden’s UN Speech an Ode to Globalist Agenda



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

Some believe that the foreign policy of any country is an outgrowth of its domestic policy. Both are seen as a particular type of engagement with other actors in order to acquire enough capabilities and resources to influence the identity, interests, and behaviors of others in a way beneficial to a power-holder. The end goals of both foreign and domestic policies are simple: ensure the entity’s physical survival and the preservation of its identity, and increase its well-being. If the policies conducted by a nation’s leadership undermine those basic goals, they may be considered poor at best, or treasonous at worst.

The speech that President Joe Biden gave Tuesday before the UN General Assembly sounded not like a resolution to pursue the national interests of America, but like a meek submission to the globalist agenda.

Let us take a look at the key points of the president’s address:

COVID Pandemic

Biden opened his speech by recognizing the “heartbreak” of every COVID death. He mourned “more than 4.5 million people — people of every nation from every background,” and added that this “collective grief” is a reminder that a “collective future” would depend on the ability to act together “to save lives, defeat COVID-19 everywhere, and take the necessary steps to prepare ourselves for the next pandemic.”

Not a word was said about the mounting hard-hitting evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan lab in China, possibly as a biological weapon, and accidentally (or perhaps intentionally) released.

Biden did not acknowledge the failed response to address the pandemic, including lockdowns that devastated people’s lives and took an enormous toll on their general well-being while failing to curb COVID transmission.

COVID Vaccines

As expected, Biden touted COVID vaccines as the main tool to defeat the virus. Noting that “bombs and bullets cannot defend against COVID-19 or its future variants,” the president stated that “we need a collective act of science and political will” to stop the pandemic and called on his colleagues to “vaccinate the world.”

The “political will” referenced by the president is already here — nearly every nation on Earth rushes to jab their populace, including children and pregnant women, with experimental gene therapeutics, aka “COVID vaccines,” against a disease that has a 99.7-percent survival rate.

However, the “science” behind the mass-vaccination campaign is far from settled. Scientifically speaking, vaccines do not protect people from getting COVID or transmitting it to others. They reduce the risk of hospitalization only to some extent, as the Israeli experience shows. Instead of vaccinating only the most vulnerable individuals and letting the rest acquire natural immunity, Biden and his globalist ilk are making Big Pharma astronomically rich while adding to the global risks of the development of much stronger and contagious variants.

The president added that his administration is working closely with the World Health Organization (WHO), and COVID Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) has shipped more than 160 million doses of the vaccine to some 100 countries.

Climate Change

Claiming that “the challenging climate we’re all feeling already ravaging every part of our world with extreme weather” is a “code red for humanity,” President Biden warned that the world is fast approaching a “point of no return.”

Further, he reassured world leaders, most of whose nations either regularly increase their CO2 emissions or fall behind the announced “climate change goals” (as have the countries of the European Union), that America remains true to its goal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 as it works toward achieving a “clean-energy economy with net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Moreover, since “climate change” is a common “threat,” Biden pledged to double public international financing and send $100 billion “to support climate action in developing nations.” The money, of course, will come out of Americans’ pockets.


In the realm of military affairs, Biden stressed that “those who commit acts of terrorism against us will continue to find a determined enemy in the United States,” as he mentioned the loss of 13 American servicemen and almost 200 Afghan civilians in the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport after the Biden administration all but abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Biden went on to say, almost ironically, that “today, we’re better equipped to detect and prevent terrorist threats, and we are more resilient in our ability to repel them and to respond.”

Biden failed to mention the recent U.S. drone strike that wiped out a family of Afghan civilians, killing zero terrorists.

While claiming that he knows how to “dismantle terrorist networks,” Biden also failed to mention how his Afghanistan withdrawal led to the dissolution of the secular government and put the Taliban — radical Islamists with close ties to the al-Qaeda terror network — in control of the country.

Afghanistan and Women’s Rights

While not addressing the disastrous U.S. foreign policy blunders in Afghanistan, Biden did mention the current situation in Afghanistan in regard to human rights.

The president said that together with other 100 countries, America supports the “people of Afghanistan moving forward, laying out the expectations to which we will hold the Taliban when it comes to respecting universal human rights.”

He stressed a particular focus to be put on women’s rights: “The rights of women and girls to use their full talents to contribute economically, politically, and socially and pursue their dreams free of violence and intimidation.”

While the Taliban reopen some schools for boys-only education, rape young girls and forcibly marry them to their fighters, and behead women for not wearing burqas, the State Department has only responded to women’s rights violations by condemning the newly established government for not being “diverse enough.”   


The word “China,” actually, was absent from the president’s speech. Biden only name-dropped Xinjiang, a Chinese region where the communist regime is engaged in genocide against the Uyghur population. Biden said, “We all must call out and condemn the targeting and oppression of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities,” while also stating that “we are not seeking a new Cold War.” The latter statement suggests the president is either unaware that China is already waging a form of cold war against the United States, or that he has no plan to counter it.

Humanitarian Aid

While Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of COVID-related economic restrictions, bubbling inflation that consumes their resources, high unemployment, and a mounting immigration crisis, Biden pledged to send more American money abroad to those “in need.” That includes an additional $10 billion to counter hunger across the globe.


Concluding his speech, the president underlined that only a kumbaya approach of a beautiful international togetherness will help the world “build a better future.”

No more “America First,” not even “America is back.” It is “America is at your disposal,” and Biden will do anything to push the goals of the global elites regarding COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates, international terrorism, climate change, or relations with China.

Brighteon: Nurse FIRED for Speaking Against Face Masks at School Board Meeting

A nurse specializing in cardiology in Georgia was fired from her job at a hospital after she spoke out at a school board meeting against the forced masking of children in government schools, raising serious concerns about freedom of speech and medical liberty in today's America. The nurse, Natisha Kidwell, came on Conversations That Matter and shared her incredible story with The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman. In short, her effort to protect her child from a policy she considers dangerous led to her losing her job! Kidwell expressed serious concerns about the health and psychological implications of masking children. She said dozens of other parents spoke out, too. Kidwell also sounded the alarm about the COVID injections, warning viewers about what she has observed at the hospital. Finally, she noted that the corporatized, government-infused nature of the healthcare system is causing doctors and other medical professionals to remain silent out of fear--something that must stop for the sake of the American people's health and wellbeing.

Brighteon: Biden Denies Passengers Medical Exemptions for Face Masks on flights

Heather Hobbs, a pro-life activist with Save The 1 and now a field coordinator for The John Birch Society in northern Texas, was denied boarding a flight. For medical reasons, her personal doctors recommends that she not wear a face mask. Yet despite having a letter from her personal physician, a recent negative COVID test, and having flown numerous times without a face mask since the pandemic was first announced in the U.S. in January of 2020, she was denied to board her flight. Hobbs tells The New American about her nightmarish ordeal at the airport, after having checked multiple times, beforehand, with the airport, airline company, and both CDC and TSA guidelines posted on their website. She recounts how the airline employees sympathized with her but were bound by newly imposed and unannounced regulations from the Biden administration. For the full story, watch and listen to her interview.

Texas Governor Abbott Signs Massive Border-security Bill

Texas Governor Abbott Signs Massive Border-security Bill



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

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill tripling the state’s border security spending for 2021 and 2022 and bringing it to a record high.

On Friday, Abbott signed House Bill 9, which will spend $1.88 billion on border security over the next two years. This comes on top of another $1.05 billion signed earlier this year — itself over $200 million more than the previous budget — bringing Texas’s total border-security spending to nearly $3 billion.

This represents a significant increase from previous years. In Texas’s 2008-09 budget, only $110 million was allocated to border security, and funding never surpassed $800 million.

Among H.B. 9’s other allocations, it devotes $750 million to construct additional border barrier — in addition to $250 million that Abbott allocated in June and the $54 million that the governor raised through crowdfunding. The bill also allocates over $450 million to increase the deployment numbers of Texas National Guard and other law-enforcement personal at the border. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice will also receive funds to help detain illegal migrants.

Speaking at the bill’s signing ceremony, Governor Abbott stated, “This funding will provide our agency partners with even more support to address the influx of unlawful migrants and prevent dangerous people and contraband from entering our state.”

Abbott went on to note, “It is the federal government’s job to secure our border, but the Biden administration has failed to do its job, so Texas is stepping up to do what the federal government is supposed to do.” He blamed “the Biden administration’s open border policies” for the need for such legislation, as they “opened the floodgates to illegal immigration, to crime, to human trafficking, to drug smuggling.”

Texas Taking on Federal Government’s Role

Since the Biden administration began in January, Texas has been slowly, but steadily, taking over the federal government’s abdicated duty of securing the southern border. According to the left-wing Migration Policy Institute, the state is currently “challenging federal immigration policy on more fronts at one time than ever before.”

Among other recent policy shifts, Abbott authorized Texas National Guard troops to enforce Texas law, something that includes arresting illegal migrants who break state law. Additionally, under a new state law that went into effect on September 1, it is easier for state officials to prosecute human smugglers.

Nonetheless, there is much more that Texas can do to secure the southern border. Abbott would be wise to nullify the various unconstitutional court-imposed restrictions on states’ ability to enforce immigration law. Article VI of the Constitution, which states that only laws “made in pursuance” of the Constitution are valid, provides a solid legal basis for such actions.

Border Surge Continues

Abbott’s signing of H.B. 9 couldn’t come at a more relevant time. The United States is currently grappling with the influx of 15,000 Haitian migrants at Del Rio, Texas, a crisis caused by the Biden administration’s extreme open-borders policies. Not only will the Department of Homeland Security release many of these migrants into the United States, but the federal government’s weak response is likely to encourage another 20,000 Haitians to enter illegally.

Meanwhile, border apprehensions remain at record levels, with over 200,000 migrant apprehensions in August. Many of these migrants are also being released into the country, a practice that Biden revived shortly after taking office.

On the refugee front, the Biden administration has already admitted more than 48,000 Afghans into the United States, with plans to admit tens of thousands more. Many of these migrants are unvetted and pose health and national-security risks. None of this has deterred Biden, who plans to admit 10 times as many refugees in Fiscal Year 2022 as have been admitted this year.

Not only do many of Biden’s actions violate federal law, but Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution requires the federal government to “protect each [state] against Invasion.” As both The John Birch Society and other organizations have pointed out, the current and planned illegal migration surge clearly meets the definition of an invasion.

It is encouraging to see Texas and other states begin to stand up to the Biden administration’s subversive mass-migration agenda. However, they would be wise to take even stronger actions to secure the border and enforce the Constitution.

To urge your state legislators to enforce the Constitution by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws and edicts, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here. Additionally, to urge your U.S. representative and senators to oppose radical mass migration legislation, visit the JBS’s alert here.

Articles of Impeachment Against Biden Introduced by Four House Republicans



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

New articles of impeachment against the perpetually embattled Joe Biden were introduced on Tuesday by Ohio Republican Bob Gibbs over Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the border crisis, and his efforts to continue the federal eviction moratorium despite warnings from the Supreme Court.

“I take this seriously. I don’t think it’s haphazard. I’m not trying to get media attention for myself,” Gibbs told the Washington Examiner. “He’s done so much damage to this country in less than nine months, which is really scary.”

“He’s not capable of being commander in chief, and that’s obvious by the actions since Day One when he took the presidency back in January,” he added. “Maybe something like this makes the White House think twice before they do some of this nonsense.”

Gibbs’ articles of impeachment has three other sponsors: Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) and Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas). There have been other articles of impeachment introduced in the House, and they, like this new one, will go nowhere so long as Democrats have control of the House—which Gibbs acknowledges.

“Obviously, it’s not going to go anywhere with Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi,” Gibbs conceded. But “it shows that there are some Republicans that think that this president needs to be impeached, he needs to be removed from office one way or another.”

“At some point, they’re gonna be held accountable for their actions, and this is kind of putting them on notice,” he added.

So far, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has refused to support efforts to impeach Joe Biden.

“Look, I’m extremely frustrated with the president. As I said, if you want to be president of the free world, you have to have the trust, faith, and confidence of the American public. President Biden lost that yesterday,” McCarthy said, following the terror attack in Kabul that killed 13 U.S. service members. He said eventually “there will be a day of reckoning.”