GERMANY: MUSLIM MIGRANTS DEFECATE, MASTURBATE IN POOL; INVADE GIRLS’ CHANGING ROOMS, ASSAULT THEM

GERMANY: MUSLIM MIGRANTS DEFECATE IN POOL; INVADE GIRLS’ CHANGING ROOMS, ASSAULT YOUNG GIRLS 
ARRESTED, THEN RELEASED BY POLICE
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/germany-muslim-migrants-defecate-in-pool-invade-girls-changing-roomsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Did they behave this way in Syria or wherever they are from? Probably not. But they have nothing but contempt for the country of the kuffar.
“REPORT: Locals Fled Pool After Migrants Masturbated Into Jacuzzi, Defecated Into Kid’s Pool, Invaded Girls Changing Rooms,” by Oliver Lane, Breitbart, January 22, 2016:
A German swimming bath has banned migrants from entering the premises after a group of men went on an obscene rampage, laughing in the faces of pool staff when challenged about their grotesque behaviour.
A group of migrant men and women were caught on security camera at the Johannisbad baths in Zwickau, Saxony engaging in unacceptable behaviour, including masturbating into the jacuzzi. In separate incidents other groups of migrants were caught “contaminating” the children’t [sic] training pool by “emptying their bowels in the water”, and sexually assaulting other bathers, reports Bild.
The allegations against the migrant bathers has come to light thanks to a leaked internal letter from the Zwickau Town Hall, between the chief clerk to his department head, reproduced in part by German tabloid Bild. Writing of the historic swimming pool’s decision to close their doors to migrants until further notice, Rainer Kallweit wrote this week of a shocking incident which has left the baths abandoned by local swimmers.
In his report, the authenticity of which has since been confirmed by the city administration Mr. Kallweit wrote the shocking words:
“An asylum seeker has masturbated in the hot tub and ejaculated into the basin. This is also recorded on the surveillance camera”. He wrote that the group desecrating the jacuzzi, having been thrown out by the lifeguards later returned took “selfies” of themselves while they were in the tub, “jeering” the whole time.
Writing of another pool under his jurisdiction in the down of Zwickau, the town employee continued to say a group of “young unaccompanied women and children” used the children’s training pool, as none of the party could swim. He wrote, in classic civil servants language they “contaminated the pool by getting rid of the contents of their intestines. Native people immediately left the pool”.
This was not the only assault on the pool. The day before, wrote Mr. Wallweit “8 foreign men … in the sauna” harassed locals, forcing pool staff to pretend the Sauna was out of action when enquiries were made my migrant men, if there were at that time local women using it. He told his superiors: “furthermore, the lifeguards have to protect women and girls from the asylum seekers. Young men wanted to forcibly penetrate the female changing room”….
This behaviour in Zwickau is not by any means unique in Germany. Breitbart London has reported on a number of sex attacks on children in swimming baths over the past week, with girls as young as 11 and boys as young as three being targeted by migrant gangs. On one occasion in Munich, a pair of young girls enjoying the waterslide at their local pool were groped, “allegedly under their bathing suits”, “and possibly raped” by a gang of “refugees”.
The men believed to be responsible, Syrian and Afghan asylum seekers, were arrested and released by police.

______________________________________________________

German Media Shows Muslim Refugees
Crapping In Pool, Raping Women
SEE: 
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2016/250116_pregnant_woman.htm

“BOWELS EMPTIED! WOMEN MOLESTED!” GERMAN MEDIA REVEALS “MONSTROUS” CCTV FOOTAGE OF REFUGEE POOL MAYHEM

Some refugees apparently didn’t get the message about proper pool behavior

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/bowels-emptied-women-molested-german-media-reveals-monstrous-cctv-footage-of-refugee-pool-mayham/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Europeans are struggling to come to terms with the wave of Mid-East refugees that have inundated the bloc over the course of the last 12 months.
The challenge, for those inclined to believe that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s multicultural utopia is feasible, is to adopt an open minded approach to the prospect of integrating millions of Muslim asylum seekers into a largely Christian society while retaining a healthy level of skepticism with regard to the prospect of unifying two vastly divergent cultures.
Even those who are predisposed to being patient with the integration process are beginning to question the wisdom behind Berlin’s open-door policy.
Interestingly, it wasn’t the murder of 130 people in Paris that served as the catalyst for what amounts to a wholesale shift in sentiment towards migrants. While there was certainly a public outcry in the wake of the Paris attacks, the backlash coalesced after New Year’s Eve, when scores of women were reportedly assaulted by men of “Arab origin.”
Since then, voters have moved to express their discontent with the bloc’s handling of the refugee crisis by taking to the streets in what on many occasions have turned out to be violent protests.
The official response has been mixed. Germany has endeavored to keep the faith (as it were) by preserving the “yes we can” narrative in public, but in private, many German politicians claim the country is on the verge of closing its borders. Austria has apparently had enough, has suspended Schengen, and is now requiring refugees to learn German or risk losing access to welfare. The country has also developed a pictographic flyer designed to coach migrants on what types of behaviors are acceptable in polite Western European society.
Switzerland has adopted the Austrian flyer and Germany has developed its own cartoons the government hopes will to clear up any “confusion” about how asylum seekers should act once settled in Europe.
A particularly sensitive issue is pool etiquette. If you believe the media, refugees are having a particularly difficult time figuring out how to behave when swimming in public. The controversy led one small German town near Cologne (the site of the New Year’s Eve assaults) to ban adult male asylum seekers from swimming.
Well, despite the best efforts of European cartoonists, some refugees apparently didn’t get the message about proper pool behavior because according to “reports,” some asylum seekers were caught on closed circuit TV doing some rather lewd things at the Johannisbad baths in Zwickau. Below, find the story from Bild, which we present without further comment because frankly, there’s not much we can add here.
*  *  *
From “In The Swimming Pool, Bowels Emptied! Women Molested!”, originally published in Bild and Google translated for your amusement
According bathrooms GmbH have masturbated refugees when visiting swimming baths in pools and emptied their bowels in the water. They are women in sauna harassed and have tried to storm the ladies’ locker!
All this is evident from a letter from clerk’s office manager Rainer Kallweit to his superior departmental head Bernd Meyer. In the letter dated 19 January (Image exists) summarizes Kallweit a report of the security that service the city’s baths GmbH. The city administration has towards BILD confirm their authenticity letter!
Kallweit reports of a memorandum from the Johannisbad. It states inter alia: “An asylum seeker has masturbated in the hot tub and ejaculated into the basin. This is also recorded on the surveillance camera “And further:”. The lifeguards threw him out. The asylee came with his, cronies’ but again purely to get his cell phone.Together, visitors have ‘in the hot tub a hooting, Selfie’ done. “
“The users of this contaminated pool by there got rid of one’s own intestinal contents. Native people have immediately leave the bathroom. “
The memo continues: “Furthermore, the lifeguards have to protect women and girls from the asylum. Young men wanted to forcibly penetrate into the dressing of women and girls. These actions could previously be blocked.”

PRO LIFE RAND PAUL INTRODUCES “LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT” TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE UNBORN

‘Life at Conception Act’ Introduced in Congress

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/24/life-at-conception-act-introduced-in-congress/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — A federal bill that would recognize the unborn as persons and subsequently provide protections to their right to life has been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
The “Life at Conception Act of 2016” was crafted by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and seeks to enshrine that the 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws applies to unborn children.
“[I]t is time for Congress to recognize the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the constitutional duty of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld,” Sen. Paul said in a statement released on Thursday.
“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” he continued. “Only when America chooses, remembers and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way.”
The Act is co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Crapo, R-ID, Jim Inhofe, R-OK, and Jim Risch, R-ID and specifies that the protections apply to the “species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.”
“[T]he Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being,” it reads.
The “Life at Conception Act,” however, notes that its language does not prohibit in vitro fertilization or the use of birth control, and should not be construed as mandating criminal actions against “any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
As previously reported, in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which was issued by a Republican majority, asserted that the Constitution does not include the unborn as being persons, and concluded that they may not therefore receive equal protection.
“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun. “[I]n nearly all these instances [where it is cited], the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”
“All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” he continued. “In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”
However, Blackmun noted that if it could be proven that unborn babies truly are persons, abortion could come to an end in America.
_____________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: http://the-trumpet-online.com/14653-2/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights.
The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as “born” individuals.
Paul said the legislation “declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception.”
“Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way,” he said.
Paul’s legislation is expected to be placed on the Senate calendar next week, allowing it to skip over the committee process. The move could allow it to come up for a vote, though no floor time has been scheduled.
Under the 14th Amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Republicans have pushed for decades to give unborn children constitutional protection, including the issue in their election-year platforms, though some have argued that such a move wouldn’t necessarily mean a blanket ban on abortions.
Paul’s legislation wouldn’t amend the Constitution and wouldn’t “require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child” or ban the use of birth control.
The proposal comes as thousands of conservative activists are gathering in Washington for the annual March for Life anti-abortion rally.
Paul, separately, slammed his congressional colleagues, saying that they’ve refused “to recognize that the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans — born and unborn.”
“As president, I will fight to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins,” he added in a statement about the rally.
________________________________________________________

OBAMA MARKS ROE V. WADE BY “REDOUBLING COMMITMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” TO ABORTION

OBAMA MARKS ROE V. WADE BY “REDOUBLING COMMITMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” 
TO ABORTION
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

WASHINGTON — On the day marking 43 years since the issuance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 60 million American babies and counting through “legalized” abortion, Barack Obama released a statement “redoubling” his commitment to the “Constitutional right” to abortion.
“Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health,”he wrote as thousands of Americans took to the streets of the nation’s capital for the annual “March for Life.” “The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor.”
“As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them,” Obama said.
He concluded his statement by declaring that “[i]n America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.” Some have interpreted Obama’s remark as meaning that abortion provides a means for Americans to realize their dreams.
Obama made similar statements last year in proclaiming that women should have equality with men.
“Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons,” he said on the 42nd commemoration of Roe.
Obama’s assertion, however, is not the first of its kind made by the federal government. As previously reported, in 1992, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, contended that abortion is necessary so that women can have active social and professional lives.
“For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” O’Connor wrote on behalf of the nation’s highest court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives,” she said.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down new abortion regulations in Texas that some say would close most of the abortion facilities in the state. Texas officials are being sued over the requirement for abortionists to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and for abortion facilities to meet the standards of surgical centers.
“Those requirements are unnecessary to protect—indeed, would harm—women’s health, and they would result in closure of three quarters of the abortion clinics in the state,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
There were 42 abortion facilities in Texas prior to the passage of the law, and 19 currently remain open. Opponents of the regulations state that the number would shrink to 10 should all the facets of the law be upheld.
The high court is expected to rule in the case in June.

U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM REALLY DOES KIDNAP TEENS~VICTIM SPEAKS OUT

doctor

U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM REALLY DOES KIDNAP TEENS~VICTIM SPEAKS OUT
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/u-s-healthcare-system-really-does-kidnap-teens-victim-speaks-out/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
(NaturalNews) A Missouri mother has been accused of medical child abuse after requesting a second opinion regarding her 17-year old son’s medical care. Isaiah Rider, who suffers from neurofibromatosis, a rare condition causing tumors on the nerves, was told he could no longer see his mother following a surgery at Luries Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.
“One day I woke up, and I was surrounded by a bunch of doctors, and they told me that I wasn’t allowed to see my mother anymore,” said Rider in a YouTube video he made after being placed in foster care following his release. “I was shocked. I was shocked.”
Mother told of agency intervention after the fact
Their story began when he and his mother, Michelle, traveled to Chicago from their home in Missouri to visit specialists recommended by his Kansas City doctors. Rider underwent surgery at Luries hospital but his condition did not improve. He remained in severe pain, suffering from hours-long tremors in what was left of his amputated leg, prompting his mother to request he be transferred to another facility for a second opinion. This resulted in the intervention of Child Protective Services (CPS) in Chicago, which immediately seized custody of Rider, leaving no time for goodbyes.
Offended by Michelle’s audacity to question the hospital’s care, CPS was called without warning, seizing custody of Rider on April 15 and prohibiting any contact between the teenager and his mother. It would be 24 days before they saw each other again.
At the time, Rider says he was so drugged up that he had no idea what was going on. He was reportedly told “his excruciating pain was all in his head,” according to Medical Kidnap, and that he wasn’t allowed to see his mom again, or return to his girlfriend, friends or school back home.
Documents obtained by The Chicago Tribune reveal the hospital’s allegations, including that the mother moved Rider from hospital to hospital, disagreed with doctors’ advice and demanded powerful sedatives to relieve his pain.
Rider disputes allegations that his mother mistreated him; in fact he worships her love and care.
“She’s been there since day 1, through everything, every surgery. I look up to her for that. I love her. She’s the best person in my life”
Michelle, who is a veteran hospice nurse, told KMBC, “I did not want nor did I at any time request that Isaiah have heavy medications. It was quite the opposite as heavy narcotics did not appear to be helping at all.”
When Rider was fit to be released, Luries hospital placed him in a foster home in a rough part of Chicago, where the teenager says he feared for his life and had a gun pulled on him twice.
Eventually Rider was transferred to foster care in Missouri, where he lived with his grandparents, however, for reasons unknown he was taken involuntarily by ambulance back to Chicago again on December 6.
A post on a Facebook page created in support of Rider and his family’s ordeal, states that he’s allowed no visitors, except for his grandma, and is “IN PAIN.”
Updated Dec. 8, the post accuses the hospital of treating Rider like a prisoner, causing him unnecessary “emotional suffering.” The update continues:
BTW State of IL you are not helping him. You are failing Isaiah Rider. You are causing him harm. He needs to get appropriate medical care and you KNOW there is a hospital that has said they can help him. Yet you take him to Chicago to make him your prisoner?
Governor calls for review of Illinois Department of Child and Family Services
There are three upcoming court dates set on Dec. 9, 11, and 15 in Chicago to settle the Rider’s custody battle. A peaceful protest was held on Dec. 9 outside the Cook County Juvenile Court, allowing the public to express their support since they aren’t allowed in the courtroom.
Illinois State Governor Pat Quinn ordered a top state advisory committee to address problems at the Department of Children and Family Services, responding to recently exposed “severe problems” at state-funded residential care centers for abused and neglected children.
“The recent revelations regarding some residential youth centers in Illinois are alarming and unacceptable,” Quinn said. “They must be addressed immediately.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052708_medical_kidnapping_child_abuse_prisoners.html#ixzz3y1lzjP7f


PARENTS BEWARE: OBAMA & GOP UNLEASH “COMMUNITY SCHOOLS” TO REPLACE PARENTS

OBAMA & GOP UNLEASH 
“COMMUNITY SCHOOLS” TO REPLACE PARENTS 
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

Parents, beware — Big Brother is coming for your kids. Buried deep inside the mammoth “bipartisan” so-called “education” legislation approved last month, dubbed the “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA), is a radical expansion of what the statute refers to as “full-service community schools.” The controversial institutions, more accurately described as parental replacement centers, seek to oversee every aspect of your child's life, ranging from their “mental health” and “well being” to nutrition and even dentistry. You are in the cross hairs, too, as the Obama administration defines parents as “equal partners” in child rearing. And those are just some of the many unconstitutional provisions in the bill and beyond that aim to turn government schools into parents, and parents into pariahs.  
In short, an increasingly out-of-control Uncle Sam — with support from the leadership of both major political parties — wants to raise your child. And with the support of virtually every education-related special interest group you can think of, the latest federal education statute, passed by the GOP Congress and cheerfully signed as a “miracle” by Obama last month, is among the primary means by which the feds plan to further undermine and attack your role as parents. The implications of the accelerating assaults on families, parental rights, constitutionally limited government, the future of America's children, and the future of the nation itself cannot be overstated.
Consider, for example, that these community schools are supposed to provide what the legislation refers to as “pipeline services.” The statute defines it like this: “The term ‘pipeline services’ means a continuum of coordinated supports, services, and opportunities for children from birth through entry into and success in post-secondary education, and career attainment.” Those “services” must include, at a minimum: “early childhood education;” school and out-of-school programs and “strategies”; support for children's “transitions"; family “supports,” including “at home”;  career counseling; “Social, health, nutrition, and mental health services and supports”; “crime prevention and rehabilitation programs”; and much more. In other words, everything that families once provided for children will become the responsibility of “community schools.” All that is missing now is hugs and bedtime stories from Big Brother.
Students will not be the only ones targeted, however. In a section dealing with what the statute describes as “promise neighborhoods” targeted for additional federally funded “services,” the statute calls for the targeting of everyone with these “pipeline services.” Bureaucrats and institutions, including government schools funded under the scheme, will be charged with providing “social, health, nutrition, and mental health services and supports, for children, family members, and community members.” Family members and community members, in other words, will be targeted for government intervention, up to and including “mental health services.” That means you. Language calling for home visitations appears to have been removed from the bill prior to final passage, but that hardly means it will not be pursued anyway.   
Under the statute, a full-service community school is defined as a government-run elementary or secondary school that “participates in a community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships.” The parental replacement centers also must “target” families and children for “services” covering their “academic, physical, social, emotional, health, mental health, and other needs,” according to the statute. The legislation, though, merely expands and purports to authorize and boost funding for various programs on “community schools” that had already been unleashed by Obama's Education Department,apparently without specific statutory authority to do so.
While parents and voters might be alarmed at the schemes, special-interests, crony capitalists, teachers' unions, bureaucrats, and other Big Government forces were celebrating the developments. “The inclusion of the Full-Service Community Schools program in the Every Student Succeeds Act reflects a broader vision for our public schools in ESSA — a vision that recognizes that educators must work in partnership with their communities to help all young people thrive,” exclaimed Martin Blank, director of the Coalition for Community Schools and president of the educational totalitarianism-promoting Institute for Educational Leadership. The coalition celebrated Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) for their efforts to promote the scheme.
Not even bothering to conceal the Orwellian nature of his pet project, Hoyer bragged about his role in pushing the scheme through Congress, as well as the unprecedented government meddling in family life that it aims to bring about. “Promoting full-service community schools has been a priority of mine for many years, and this legislation builds on earlier efforts to promote and expand this model, which brings existing critical community services for children and their parents — such as early childhood learning, medical and dental screenings, and career counseling — into schools,” the far-left congressman said in a statement.
Apparently top school bureaucrats also believe their job responsibilities include usurping the role of families and parents in the raising of their own children. “In a broad ESSA that offers comprehensive reauthorization, we are proud to continue to support the Community Schools model and commend Congress for including the program in the reauthorization,” said Dan Domenech, executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. “The Full Service Community Schools program encompasses more than just academics — it ensures success beyond the inside of school buildings. Only when children have support for all their needs will schools have a real chance of helping every student master required education concepts and skills.”  
Big Labor was delighted, too. American Federation of Teachers boss Randi Weingarten, for instance, could hardly contain her glee about the rapidly expanding role of government schools in child rearing. “This is a big win for students, families and educators because the wraparound services that are part and parcel of community schools help level the playing field for disadvantaged students and their families,” she gushed in a statement. “In addition to providing a strong academic program, community schools provide social, emotional and health services needed to educate the whole child and mitigate the impact of poverty. This is particularly important today since more than half of all public school students are poor.”
As community schools increasingly usurp more and more control over more and more children, the Obama administration is forging ahead in other areas, too. The U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, are currently pursuing a policy in which parents are described as “equal partners” with government in the raising of their own children. “It is the position of the Departments that all early childhood programs and schools recognize families as equal partners in improving children’s development, learning and wellness across all settings, and over the course of their children’s developmental and educational experiences,” reads the draft policy posted on the federal government's website.  
Beyond community schools, the ESSA legislation also targets Americans for government “education” at earlier and earlier ages. Among other provisions, the ESSA scheme creates a new federal preschool program — entirely unconstitutional — with massive funding levels aimed at bringing more and more children into government care and the earliest possible opportunity. “We know that the early years can make a huge difference in a child’s life, so this law lays the foundation to expand high-quality pre-schools,” boasted Obama, who called the bill passed by the GOP-controlled Congress a “Christmas miracle.” Since taking office, Obama has been trying to herd more children into government-run programs. And thanks to Republicans, he has now succeeded, as top Obama officials have been boasting.     
Also part of the new statute are “21st century community learning centers,” described in the legislation as a scheme to offer students a “broad array of additional services” including everything from “counseling programs” and “health education” to “cultural programs” and “youth development activities.” The scheme is meant to keep children in government care outside of school hours, too, providing funds for “activities” before and after the school day. Even parents are supposed to be ensnared in the federal program, with the statute calling for the “community learning centers” to provide a “parenting skills program.” Data collection to measure “student success” is a key component of the plot, too.  
Critics sounded the alarm. Attorney and activist Jane Robbins with Truth in American Education, for instance, said the “community learning centers” scheme means “schools will be expanded to replace family and church as the center of every child’s life, offering myriad 'services' including mental-health programs.” “Few things should alarm parents more than the prospect of the government’s assessing their child’s mental health and proceeding to fix any problem the government claims to find,” Robbins added, noting that this is precisely what the Republican Congress had imposed on America. U.S. taxpayers will fork over more than $1 billion per year for the “community learning” scheme alone.
The broader ESSA legislation, which was celebrated by the Obama administration as a massive victory for its radical agenda, is also packed with references to “mental health.” In essence, government schools are now expected to seek out any child deemed to have a “mental health” problem — or even those children supposedly potentially at risk of someday developing a “mental health” problem. Teachers are expected to receive training in how to identify such children. Children will be regularly tested and profiled for the purpose. Schools, meanwhile, will be charged with referring such students for “treatment.” The role of parents in the whole process, if there is one, remains unclear. But considering trends in the “mental health” industry, parents should be deeply concerned about these developments.  
The ESSA statute, despite being unconstitutional on every level, is going to help the Obama administration and the broader establishment in their goal of “fundamentally transforming” America. In fact, the legislation will be crucial, as it targets the minds of children for radical brainwashing and indoctrination. Top Obama education bureaucrats have already made their Orwellian agenda clear. Recently retired Education Secretary Arne Duncan, for instance, has boasted of using government schools to transform your children into “green citizens” with UNESCO as his “global partner.” He has also called for government boarding schools that would keep some children 24/7.
Americans concerned about the future of their children, liberties, self-government, Constitution, and even nation, must resist the agenda and protect their own children from a federal government gone mad. Withdrawing from government schools and replacing members of Congress who violated their oath of office and the Constitution to foist ESSA on America would be a good start.
Related articles:

PRO LIFE PREGNANCY CENTERS SUE CALIFORNIA OVER LAW FORCING THEM TO DISCUSS ABORTION PROGRAMS

PRO LIFE PREGNANCY CENTERS SUE CALIFORNIA OVER LAW FORCING THEM TO DISCUSS ABORTION PROGRAMS 
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
Last fall, the state of California enacted Assembly Bill 775. The law, which went into effect on January 1 of this year, requires pregnancy centers in the state to have written statements posted in all clinics making clients aware of the state’s abortion programs. In response to this pro-abortion law, three faith-based pregnancy centers filed a lawsuit against the state on Thursday.
Under the law, health clinics that provide pregnancy-related services must inform their patients about California’s public programs that offer family planning options, including abortion.  
The law compels all pregnancy clinics to make the following statement visible to their clients:  
California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.
LifeNews adds that the law states that the notice must be in 22-point font, distributed to patients in no less than 14-point font, or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival.”
In addition to the pre-written statement, centers are required to provide the phone number to social services where callers are provided with additional information about abortion programs.
Furthermore, pro-life centers that fail to provide the abortion information the first time will be subjected to fines of $500, and $1,000 per incident thereafter, notes World Net Daily.
But three pro-life pregnancy centers have filed suit against what they are calling an unconstitutional law that violates their First Amendment rights by compelling speech with which they disagree. The plaintiffs in the case are Mountain Right to Life, Inc. (dba Pregnancy & Family Resource Center), Birth Choice of the Desert, and His Nesting Place, represented by the Liberty Counsel.
The lawsuit contends that the law violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional guarantees of free speech and free exercise of religion “by requiring Plaintiffs to post government-dictated messages which are antithetical to their beliefs and which they do not wish to communicate.”
The complaint adds that AB 775 is “unconstitutional on its face and as applied.”
It reads,
An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial constitutional issues, in that Plaintiffs assert that the challenged statute violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise of 8 Religion rights of Plaintiffs guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth 9 Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Article I, §§2(a), 4 of the 10 California Constitution, while Defendants assert the Act comports with the United 11 States and California constitutions.
The legislation states that “the purpose of this act is to ensure that California residents make their personal reproductive health care decisions knowing their rights and the health care services available to them.” But despite the rhetoric, Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver contends the law is simply about control and empowering the state:
This is reminiscent of the government-mandated messages in George Orwell’s 1984. AB 775 mandates that these faith-based, crisis pregnancy centers utter a state-drafted, pro-abortion message or be fined up to $1,000 each time they fail to comply.
What we are seeing is the evolution of political correctness. While the PC movement used social consequences to restrict speech, now the secular, progressive California legislature is using the law and fines to mandate speech. This is not only anti-American, it should be terrifying to every freedom-loving American. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are both protected by the First Amendment.
This is not the first challenge to California’s controversial law.
When AB 775 was passed last October, two faith-based pregnancy centers — Care Net Pregnancy Center and A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Center — sought injunctive relief that would have excused them from having to provide their clients information about abortion.
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative nonprofit that filed the suit on the centers’ behalf, declared,
Forcing a religious pro-life charity to proclaim a pro-abortion declaration is on its face an egregious violation of both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  We will not rest until this government mandate is completely halted.
And though the judge seemed to agree with their constitutional arguments, injunctive relief was not granted.
U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller, who presided over the case, admitted that if the court denied the plaintiffs the injunctive relief, they were “likely to suffer irreparable injuries with respect to their constitutional rights and incur civil penalties,” but the burden to prove that the “injunction is in the public interest” was on them, and they failed to present sufficient evidence of that.
Judge Mueller ruled that the public’s interest was to ensure that women in California were made aware of all their reproductive healthcare options.
“California has a special interest in protecting and regulating trades that closely concern public health,” she wrote. “Though the public interest favors upholding the First Amendment, the public interest also favors ensuring California women are fully informed as to their reproductive health care options.”
Mueller acknowledged that the law’s required notice is compelled speech, but defended it as speech that “provides truthful, non-misleading information to the clinics’ clients during their appointments” and “does not otherwise restrict speech,” noting that the clinics opposed to the law may continue to criticize it during appointments with the clients and may still advocate their own religious beliefs.
But that is not enough. Constitutional lawyer Herbert Titus of William J. Olson, P.C. told World News Daily that the First Amendment protects citizens from being “forced to carry someone else’s message.”
Still, Titus states that he is not surprised by California’s efforts to suppress its citizens’ constitutional rights.
“It’s fairly typical of California,” he noted, “[which is] always on the cutting edge of making us more and more like a fascist country, in which the state determines what we can say and what we can’t say.”
However, if past precedent is any indication, AB 775 may not withstand the opposition.
According to Life News, the law closely mirrors ones found in Austin, Texas; Baltimore and Montgomery Counties in Maryland; and New York City, all of which were thrown out after courts determined the government-mandated messages were unconstitutional.

REPORT: HILLARY CLINTON IS MENTALLY ILL?

REPORT: HILLARY CLINTON IS MENTALLY ILL
“YOU CAN’T MAKE HER A ‘PEOPLE PERSON'”
Published on Jan 21, 2016
Alex Jones talks with former Clinton insider Larry Nichols about the rumors that Hillary Clinton is struggling to maintain control of her own mind.
PITY WILL HELP HER, UNTIL???
“SHE WILL BRING US INTO A COMMUNIST AMERICA” IF NOT STOPPED

OBAMA SUED IN FEDERAL COURT OVER EXECUTIVE GUN CONTROL

President Obama Sued in Federal Court Over Executive Gun Control
OBAMA SUED IN FEDERAL COURT OVER EXECUTIVE GUN CONTROL

“The President cannot simply announce sweeping new rules and implement them by giving a speech or issuing an executive memorandum”

BY ADAN SALAZAR
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/president-obama-sued-in-federal-court-over-executive-gun-control/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The founder of a conservative political watchdog group is the first in the nation to file a lawsuit against the federal government over President Obama’s recent executive actions on gun control.
Claiming the president cannot redefine laws enacted by Congress, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit in federal district court on Monday naming Obama, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Director of the Department of Justice, Thomas E. Brandon, as defendants.
“The Defendants’ rewriting of laws burdening and abridging the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff and other US citizens under the Second Amendment by the President and his executive branch is unconstitutional,” the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida states.
“These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the President’s and executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the President as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.”
The complaint argues Obama’s executive actions attempt to redefine ATF enforcement activities and policies, including “who is a ‘dealer’ in firearms ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms,’” according to a press release regarding the lawsuit.
“The change of interpretation now sweeps up persons who do not seek to earn a livelihood or make a profit, who buy or sell as few as one or two guns a year,” the press release says. “Worse, the new rules are so vague and subjective that Klayman challenges them as ‘void for vagueness.’ Being treated as a dealer now creates the obligation to conduct background checks for those sales.”
The lawsuit is in response to the January 4 announcement from President Obama where he stated he would unilaterally implement further infringements on the Second Amendment.
Check out the rest of Larry Klayman’s complaint below:

APOSTATE LIBERTY UNIVERSITY WELCOMES REALITY SHOW “PASTOR” & COLLABORATOR WITH “I AM A GOD” RAPPER KANYE WEST

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY’S MOTTO: 
“TRAINING CHAMPIONS FOR CHRIST” 
(ACTUALLY, THE DEVIL) 
“CONDONING THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD SYSTEM THAT SO PLAGUES THE CHURCH”
1 JOHN 2:15-“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
Wilkerson-compressed (1)
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY WELCOMES REALITY SHOW “PASTOR” & COLLABORATOR WITH 
“I AM A GOD” RAPPER KANYE WEST 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/20/liberty-university-welcomes-reality-show-pastor-and-collaborator-with-i-am-a-god-rapper-kanye-west/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LYNCHBURG, Va. — A reality star hipster “pastor” who is known for marrying Playboy cover model Kim Kardashian to blasphemous “I Am a God” rapper Kanye West, and for collaborating with West on the script for his “Yeezus” tour and other projects, was welcomed Wednesday by Liberty University, which heralds itself as being the world’s largest Christian university, to address students during convocation.
As previously reported, Rich Wilkerson Jr.’s reality show “Rich in Faith” began airing last month on the Oxygen channel and follows Wilkerson as he launches a new congregation called “Vous Church.”
“I come from a different perspective. I don’t think people are interested in a bunch of religion, like tell me what I can and can’t do,” Wilkerson says in the promotional video for the show. “But I think people are interested in having a relationship with a higher power.”
The preview shows Wilkerson getting a tattoo, lying on the beach with his bikini-clad wife, and telling his parents that he plans to hold his first service at a bar.
“In recent months, the themes of Wilkerson’s sermons have been based on songs from the Top 40: Drake’s ‘Worst Behavior,’ DJ Snake and Lil Jon’s club thumper ‘Turn Down for What,’ Beyoncé’s ‘Drunk in Love,’” the Miami New Times reports.
“His messages take surprising detours on their way to the gospel. He might roll out a story about pissing his pants as a kid, talk about marital sex, or even point out the church’s proximity to Miami’s strip joints,” it outlines.
Wilkerson, who previously led a 1,500-member young adult group called “The Rendezvous” at his father’s Trinity Church, was put into the spotlight in 2014 after he officiated the wedding of profanity-laden rapper Kanye West, known for songs such as “I Am a God,” “Drunk and Hot Girls,” “Hold My Liquor” and “Jesus Walks,” to Playboy cover model Kim Kardashian, the step-daughter of Bruce Jenner.
He had met the couple two years prior after they visited his father’s congregation.
“I just talked to Jesus/He said, ‘What up Yeezus?’/ I said, “[Expletive], I’m chilling/Trying to stack these millions,” West raps in his song “I Am a God.” “I know He the Most High/But I am a close high/… I am a god.”
“It began a relationship; we (Wilkerson and West) started emailing and calling each other. We collaborated on a few things: art, fashion, music, Jesus,” Wilkerson told People Magazine last year. “He invited me to write a few things for his tour, and I’ve been able to counsel him on a few things.”
Wilkerson is stated to have helped with the script for West’s “Yeezus” tour, where West brought a man dressed as Jesus on stage during a show in Seattle.
“White Jesus, is that you?” he asked on stage. “Oh [expletive]!”
West provided the artwork for Wilkerson’s new book “Sandcastle Kings,” which was released in November.
“Kanye is a really good friend,” Wilkerson told reporters. “We chat every week about different things … He’s an amazing artist and designer, and with my first book coming out, I thought it would be fun for him to design the cover.”
Pop star Justin Bieber also visited the congregation, and Wilkerson recently praised him in an interview with Cosmopolitan.
“I think he is doing great,” he said. “I just saw him three days ago in L.A. He’s doing awesome. We are proud of him.”
As previously reported, in an interview with Complex Magazine in October, Bieber spoke much about his views on Christianity, criticizing churches that warn about Hell and Christians who are “overly churchy.” He stated, however, the he personally desires to be more outspoken about the Christian faith and just wants to “live like Jesus.” Days after the interview was released, Bieber made headlines for smoking marijuana and drinking Hennessy on stage.

SchimmelSchimmel

But some have expressed concern about Wilkerson, including Joe Schimmel, pastor of Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, California, and host of the documentary “They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll.”
“When Wilkerson’s church was new, one gimmick he employed was to offer to eat a live gold fish if 300 people attended. Some time later, he offered to be zapped with a stun gun when they hit 2,000 attendees,” he explained in a blog post last month.
While Wilkerson says that he believes in Hell and acknowledges that a person goes through a process of sanctification after coming to Christ, he says that specific sins are not discussed much from the pulpit.
“At our church, homosexuality is not a topic I like to chat about very much, but I don’t talk about a whole lot of issues,” Wilkerson told the Miami New Times last year. “I talk about what Jesus is for, not what he’s supposedly against.”
“I don’t know who’s going to Hell. I just know that followers of Jesus are going to Heaven—that’s what the Bible says,” he said. “My message isn’t ever who’s going where.”
“As a pastor, my heart breaks for those who are teaching such serious false doctrines and condoning the wickedness of the world system that so plagues the Church,” Schimmel said. “My heart breaks because I fear and tremble, knowing that the Scriptures declare that we will have a stricter judgment (James 3:1-2), give an account for souls (Hebrews 13:17), and that the blood of those who perish, will be on our heads if we fail to preach repentance and the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:21, 26-27).”
Wilkerson, whose father is the cousin of the late David Wilkerson, was scheduled to speak at Liberty University this morning during the mandatory convocation service. Liberty University’s motto is “Training Champions for Christ.”
As previously reported, on Monday, Liberty University rolled out what was called a “hero’s welcome” for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and university president Jerry Falwell Jr. took to Fox News to defend Trump’s profession of Christianity.
“Those are just things that I think the world needed to know about Donald Trump because the Bible says that by your fruits you shall know them,” Falwell said. “He may not be a theological expert …, but when you look at the fruits of his life and all the people he’s provided jobs, I think that’s the true test of somebody’s Christianity not whether or not they use the right theological terms.”
Erwin McManus, an emergent leader with Mosaic Church in California, is scheduled to speak at the school on Feb. 3.
_____________________________________________________
ERWIN MCMANUS: 
DESTROYER OF CHRISTIANITY
EXCERPTS:

“My goal is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a re-catalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ,” McManus, author of a new book called “The Barbarian Way,” said in a telephone interview.

“Some people are upset with me because it sounds like I’m anti-Christian. I think they might be right.” Erwin McManus

The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus“It is evident from the contents of The Barbarian Way that McManus has a fascination for old Celtic lore. The ways of the Celts in battle, their commitment to cause and their loyalty to their king seem to be a recurring theme. From the beginning, this book emphasizes the “barbarian way” of doing things and walking through life, hence its name, and declares these ways superior by far to traditional Christianity….
“The bottom line is that Jesus Christ doesn’t want barbarians. The barbarian heart is the one from which He has delivered us. That “primal,” sensual, I’ve-got-to-be-me attitude that casts off restraint has no place in the Christian congregation. As romantic as that distant era of warfare and wild living might seem, we can’t go back, and we don’t really want to. There’s nothing back there for us anymore. We need to be satisfied with Christ alone, as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. That is enough, and more than we can possibly live out in this short earthly span. The true barbarian way—brutal, self-serving, violent—needs to remain in the deep past where it belongs, where my own Celtic forbears are buried with their swords and superstitions.” —A review of The Barbarian Way By Kevin Reeves

Special Report:
The Barbarian Way

In The Barbarian Way, McManus tells readers that the story of the Crusades “awakens within me a primal longing that I am convinced waits to be unleashed within everyone who is a follower of Jesus Christ.” But McManus has an unusual definition of “follower of Jesus Christ.” He says:
“When asked if they [Barbarians] are Christians, their answer might surprisingly be no, they are passionate followers of Jesus Christ.” This might sound OK on the surface, but it is part of the new missiology and the new evangelicalism that Rick Warren and others proclaim, “God doesn’t care what religion you are, just add Jesus to what you already have.” Thus you can be a Buddhist with Jesus, a Hindu with Jesus – that’s OK. McManus clarifies this when he states: “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.” He elaborates more:
They [Barbarians – who he tries to convince readers they should be] see Christianity as a world religion, in many ways no different from any other religious system. Whether Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, they’re not about religion; they’re about advancing the revolution Jesus started two thousand years ago (p.6).
While some may think McManus is talking about some kind of true revival, he’s not, not a revival towards the Jesus of the Bible anyway. McManus’ Jesus is all together different. And using the same lingo that most contemplatives use (and New Agers for that matter), he tells readers that they have been “recreated to live in a raw and primal spirituality” that listens “to the voice of the Spirit… Barbarians are not welcome among the civilized and are feared among the domesticated.” The book reads more like a primer to prepare for an anarchist war than instruction and exhortation on how to live the Christian life according to the Bible. Read the rest of this report, click here.
Erwin McManus on Mysticism
For those who may wonder just what is at the basis of McManus’ spirituality, this quote by the author says it all:

The Barbarian Way [his book] was, in some sense, trying to create a volatile fuel to get people to step out and act. It’s pretty hard to get a whole group of people moving together as individuals who are stepping into a more mystical, faith-oriented, dynamic kind of experience with Christ. So, I think Barbarian Way was my attempt to say, “Look, underneath what looks like invention, innovation and creativity is really a core mysticism that hears from God, and what is fueling this is something really ancient. (emphasis added) Erwin McManus,Interview by Al Sergel with Erwin McManus, “Soul Cravings, Q&A (Relevant Magazine,http://www.relevantmagazine.com/godarticle.php?id=7241). [Relevant Magazine has removed this link-on file at LTRP]

_______________________________________________________

“THE GOSPEL OF ERWIN”:

SEE: http://apprising.org/2010/01/14/the-casket-of-erwin-mcmanus/;
EXCERPTS:

One of the targets of my criticism in that post was Erwin Raphael McManus, self-styled “futurist, author, speaker, activist, filmmaker and innovator who specializes in the field of developing and unleashing personal and organizational creativity, uniqueness, innovation and diversity.” Some say he is a “pastor” (though he seems to eschew that title and most other ecclesiastical terms). He’s the lead speaker at Mosaic, “a Community of faith, love, and hope” in Pasadena.
It’s a Southern Baptist congregation, but you’d be hard-pressed to discover that fromthe church’s own publicity. I spent many hours a few years ago watching videos and listening to sound files of McManus’s teaching, and I have read two or three of his books, plus practically everything he has posted on line. I have never seen him explain, much less affirm, the gospel. (Online source)
In that 2008 post I said: “Clear gospel truth is almost impossible to find in the material he publishes and posts for public consumption. And in that regard, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Erwin McManus and Joel Osteen. He’s Osteen with blue jeans and an occasional soul patch rather than a shiny suit and a perpetual grin.” (Online source)
 You can read this insightful article by Phil Johnson in its entirety right here.

ERWIN MCMANUS THE MOUTH THAT ROARED

SEE: http://apprising.org/2010/09/11/erwin-mcmanus-the-mouth-that-roared/;

EXCERPTS:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Myths Of The Mind Of McManus
He’s known for teaching foolish things like the following concerning Soul Cravings, one of his earlier books. You’ll understand the context of McManus’ mythology of “innovators and early adopters” when you realize the the below comes from an interview McManus gave to Matt Comer of Infuse Magazine, which tells us it’s where we can learn “everything spiritual and new age, yoga, meditation, holistic health, crystal healing, reiki and chakra, spiritual healing.”
What McManus will tell us is straight out of classic mystic myth of some supposed “spark of the divine” where God i.e. the universe is thought to already indwell all human beings:
Students And Pastors Hear Assertions From McManus Not Grounded In Scripture
Why this man is being used to train seminary students and pastors with this drivel is beyond me. People listen to their own soul because of sin; prior to regeneration we are all bent toward pleasing ourselves, these people “trying to bring meaning” to their lives need to hear the Gospel, not be pitched some new company McManus has started. And they sure don’t need to hear the lie that “there is greatness in everyone”; some of us are made to be regular folk, and our “greatness” is in surrendering our lives that Jesus may be glorified. Here’s what a real Biblical leader named John once said — “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).
________________________________________________________
DREAMING BIG DREAMS
Erwin McManus:
The New Face of Southern Baptist
SEE: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/discernment/11-22-mcmanus-southern-baptist.htmrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In order to understand Erwin McManus one must visit some of the many webpages associated with him and his MOSAIC church and ministry. What follows is a whirlwind tour of the various websites where one can learn more about this Southern Baptist pastor. He isn’t just “doing church.” This is a disturbing look into the new face of what used to be a fundamentalist denomination.

The new face of fundamentalism looks Jungian, mystical, futuristic and dominionist. Leaving behind the biblical doctrine of separation, it goes far beyond the neoevangelicals who merely accommodated themselves to the culture. This church of the future seeks to actually change the culture. But not by Scriptures. By metaphors, myths, images and activating the “divine potential of every human being.” (See previous two posts.)

NOTE: Each of these webpages below is interlinked with other webpages, but one often cannot get to things directly and openly. Follow the links from one page to another to unravel this man’s beliefs, activities, and associations. This is just a few highlights. To really grasp the implications of this, visit these pages and see the incredible graphic images, and follow the links yourself.

Today’s whirlwind tour of Erwin McManus reminds us of the game “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?” We challenge the tourista to find anything more than a veiled or token reference to Jesus Christ or His Gospel of salvation in these webpages.

“Where In the World is Jesus Christ?”

To begin, look at www.alexmcmanus.org and notice the links, graphics and language. To understand Erwin McManus, one must follow the activities of his brother Alex McManus. The two men are inextricably linked in partnerships on many levels, and this will become evident in today’s post.
http://alexmcmanus.org/index.php/about-alex/

“Alex served on the Leadershp team of MOSAIC Los Angeles from 1998 through 2004. He was a key leader behind ORIGINS, the Mosaic Leadership Experience, and from 2002 through 2006 grew the conference from a small pilot event to an experience of International reknown and status. During this same time, Alex helped create the Mosaic Alliance and served as the Global Liason from 2002 through 2006. In October 2004, Alex launched the International Mentoring Network, a custom made mentoring process with dense relational components, to discover, develop and deploy leaders. “

International Mentoring Network
http://internationalmentoringnetwork.com/about
“Overview
“The International Mentoring Network (IMN) is a custom-made mentoring process and peer network. The Mentoring Process is designed to both offer a full-bodied foretaste of mission and ministry in the 21st century and to create ongoing conversation and partnership in mission and ministry.

“In order to do this, The IMN expoits to full advantage both the cyber world and the sphere of concrete relationships. Through the creation of an online university, and online performance venue, a network of blogs and even a cyber-city, the IMN is on the forefront of innovation in the world of technology and mission. On the concrete side, the IMN currently operates out of two centers, Los Angeles and Orlando with plans to expand to Montreal, Seattle/Vancouver, the UK and Europe within the next two to three years. As an added value, the IMN has sponsored annual regional “Makers of Fire” events and is now preparing a new National Conference, HUMANA 2.0 –the fight for humanity begins here . The IMN FACULTY will offer, throughout the six-month process, a full array of ingredients necessary for
*guiding people through life change
*creating an apostolic ethos
*creatively engaging people and culture”

New Conference in Orlando, Fl
“ErwinMcManus (Mosaic), DavidArcos (Mosaic) will join me (AlexMcManus) and many others in Orlando, Florida this February for a new conference created by the International Mentoring Network. Check out the details for HUMANA 2.0 at http://fight4humanity.com. Register before November 15 and enjoy an early adapter discount.”

http://www.fight4humanity.com/
“This February 7-8 in Orlando, Florida, the fight for humanity begins again. Join ErwinMcManus, DavidArcos, GerardoMarti, AlexMcManus and others for a convergence of missional leaders. Register before November 15 and save with an early adopter discount.”

http://www.fight4humanity.com/invitation/
“Invitation
“An invitation from Alex McManus…
“For the last two years, the International Mentoring Network has worked intimately with ORIGINS, the Mosaic Leadership Experience. Mosaic is counted as one of the most unique communities of faith in the world and Origins is, in my opinion, the finest missional leadership development experience in the west.
“This year the IMN is multiplying the learning and networking opportunities by also sponsoring HUMANA 2.0 in Orlando, Florida on February 7-8, 2007.

“If Origins is about all things Mosaic, HUMANA 2.0 is about all things future…as well as multiple models for mission. Our goal will be to provide future-oriented leaders a venue in which to examine diverse, 21st century applications and models of ministry and mission. As we consider Mosaic very much a part of that future, we wish to provide for you opportunities to discuss what it is that makes Mosaic tick. We will also seek to put on the table other emerging forms of mission and ministry: The simple or organic church, entrepreneurial kingdom enterprises, emerging churches, and the cutting edge, cyber-city called voxtropolis.”

http://awakenhumanity.org/ethos
“What is ETHOS NY 2006?
“A leadership development experiment designed as an opportunity to dialogue with cultural shapers and innovators from Los Angeles, New York, and around the world on topics ranging from leadership, culture, creativity, innovation and the future of the Church.

“…it is more important to change what people care about than to change what they believe! You can believe without caring, but you can’t care without believing.”
– Erwin Raphael McManus Taken from An Unstoppable Force

ETHOS (n.) The fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, and practices of a group or society.

“ETHOS is what happens when many individuals make autonomous choices that create a unified movement. ETHOS moves us when nothing else will and like nothing else will. ETHOS can be described as a tribal emotion. Like emotions fire us up, ETHOS is the tribal fire. ETHOS is the fuel of our caring and the fire of our passions. Join us in New York for this unique and transformational experience that will ignite and fuel your passion for the movement of Christ around the world!”

http://yelo.awakenhumanity.org/
yelo is an Awaken event that focuses on unleashing your creativity, elevating your influence, challenging your character, and maximizing your leadership potential.

“The yelo team experiences first hand the reward of living in a strength-based diverse community. Using the metaphor of a mosaic, we bring our unique and substantial pieces together for a common purpose: to unleash creativity and build community in your organization. Inspired by an ardent and sincere belief in what we offer, we are committed to serving you and your organization.
“All of us have dreams hibernating inside of us, but we often find it difficult to make them come alive. The quest to live out our dreams begins by unleashing our creative spirit and coming face to face with the uniqueness of our potential. Along the way in life, we discover the importance of character in this journey and are confronted with the primal essence of who we are.

yelo experiences are offered in Los Angeles three times a year and are open to anyone.”

http://awakenhumanity.org/leadership/

“Awaken Leadership… What is ETHOS NY 2006?A leadership development experiment designed as an opportunity to dialogue with cultural shapers and innovators from Los Angeles, New York, and around the world on topics ranging from leadership, culture, creativity, innovation and the future of the Church. To learn more about ETHOS, go to our ETHOS page.

“yelo
“Awakening the Human Spirit
“We all have dreams, passions, and talents. But why do some of us realize our uniqueness and advance forward with maximum impact, while others watch timidly from a distance and wonder why their life isn’t going the direction they hoped it would? All of us have dreams hibernating inside of us, but we often find it difficult to make them come alive. The quest to live out your dreams begins by unleashing your creative spirit and coming face to face with the uniqueness of your potential as a human being. Along the way in life, we discover the importance of character in this journey and are confronted with the primal essence of who we are. (yelo) is an Awaken event that focuses on unleashing your creativity, elevating your influence, challenging your character, and maximizing your leadership potential. Awaken is an organization that can make these ideas a reality in your life.

yelo is a mobile event, i.e., we bring yelo to your city, and your context.”

http://awakenhumanity.org/films/
http://awakenhumanity.org/music/
http://awakenhumanity.org/arts/
http://awakenhumanity.org/awaken-humanity/

http://erwinmcmanus.com/bio
“Erwin is the catalyst behind Awaken, a collaboration of dreamers committed to creating environments that expand imagination and unleash creativity. Convinced that the world is changed by dreamers and visionaries, Awaken serves the purpose of history by maximizing the divine potential in every human being.”

http://erwinmcmanus.com/news
http://erwinmcmanus.com

http://www.fight4humanity.com/speakers/
Speakers
THE SEERS
ERWINMCMANUS– author and lead pastor of MOSAIC Los Angeles
GERARDOMARTI– author (A Mosaic of Believers) and professor of sociology
DAVIDARCOS– writer and performing artist, director of the Urban Poets
ALEXMCMANUS– founder of the International Mentoring Network & creator of VOXTROPOLIS.COM

http://www.fight4humanity.com/overview

http://www.fight4humanity.com/schedule
GENERAL SESSIONS (subject to change)
– The Mosaic Future
– The PostHuman Future
– The CyberFuture
– An Organic Future

To be continued, Lord willing…

The Truth:
“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.” (Colossians 2:8)






CRUZ SEEKS TO BLOCK JOINT U.S. & CUBA SECURITY EXERCISES

CRUZ SEEKS TO BLOCK JOINT U.S. & CUBA SECURITY EXERCISES
Demands return of dummy Hellfire missile
BY ADAM KREDO
SEE: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cruz-seeks-to-block-joint-u-s-cuba-security-exercises/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Congress may consider blocking the United States and Cuba from conducting joint security exercises until the Obama administration can prove the communist regime has dialed back its anti-American efforts, according to a letter sent to the Pentagon and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a leading critic of the administration’s detente with Cuba, petitioned Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on Wednesday, demanding that he disinvite Cuba from the upcoming Caribbean Nations Security Conference, which will be held later this month in Jamaica. Cruz is concerned about recent reports that Cuba is in possession of a dummy American Hellfire missile.
The inclusion of Cuba in these sensitive discussions is “reckless” and any invitation should be rescinded “at the very least until the Hellfire is returned to the United States,” Cruz wrote in the letter.
In the months since the Obama administration renewed relations with Cuba and removed it from the official state sponsors of terror list, the Cuban regime has continued to harbor fugitives from the U.S., including one who was convicted in 1977 of murdering a New Jersey State Trooper.
Cruz maintains that it is not in the national security interests of U.S. to include Cuba in the high-level security talks, which were announced by the Pentagon earlier this month.
It seems “recklessly premature to participate in a joint security exercise with Cuba this month, especially as they seem likely to only use it as a platform from which to demand the return of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,” Cruz wrote, referring to recent indications by Cuba that it will push the Obama administration to return the land currently being used to house terror suspects.
“I would like to know the rationale behind this decision, and I urge you to reconsider this invitation at the very least until the Hellfire is returned to the United States,” Cruz wrote.
The senator also disclosed current discussions in Congress aimed at barring the administration from conducting joint military exercises with Cuba.
“I also warn you of my intention to insert language into the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting any future such joint exercises until Congress receives convincing assurances that the anti-American posture of the Castro regime has undergone a material change,” Cruz wrote.
Pentagon leaders disclosed this month that, for the first time, a delegation of Cuban officials would participate in the annual Caribbean security conference, which is run in part by U.S. Southern Command.
“We’ve normalized now and, regardless of how we think of each other in terms of politics, we have very, very common challenges,” Gen. John Kelly, Southern Command’s leader, told the Associated Press.
Cuba continues to pose a danger to regional stability and has continued to illicitly move arms to nations like North Korea, according to Cruz.
“Regardless of the diplomatic détente offered to Cuba by the Obama administration, the regime of Raul and Fidel Castro has been for more than half a century the implacable enemy of the United States,” Cruz wrote.
“They have detained our citizens. They are still harboring fugitives … they have participated in violent, destabilizing activities through the region, notably in Colombia and Venezuela,” according to Cruz.
The lawmaker has requested that the Pentagon respond to his letter no later than Jan. 25.



LAWMAKER: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FUELING “CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY ISRAEL”

LAWMAKER: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FUELING “CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY ISRAEL” 
Ambassador’s comments spark new fight with Israel
BY ADAM KREDO
SEE: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/lawmaker-obama-admin-fueling-campaign-destroy-israel/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A leading member of the congressional Israel caucus says the Obama administration is fueling hatred against the Jewish state following comments by a top U.S. diplomat accusing Israel of not upholding democratic rule of law, according to a letter sent Wednesday to the State Department and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, lashed out at the administration, chastising it for seeking to inflame a diplomatic fight with Israel as the Jewish state grapples with a new wave of Palestinian terror attacks that has killed and wounded many civilians.
Dan Shapiro, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, elicited a sharp rebuke from Israeli leaders Tuesday when he accused the Jewish state of failing to properly investigate crimes committed against Palestinians.
“Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities, too much vigilantism goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians,” Shapiro said, referring to this as “unacceptable.”
Shapiro’s comments came the same day that Dafna Meir, an Israeli mother of six who was stabbed to death last week in her home by a Palestinian terrorist, was buried.
Israeli leaders accused Shapiro of promulgating lies used by Israel’s critics to delegitimize the Jewish state.
Shapiro’s comments prompted Roskam to write Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday to demand that he distance the Obama administration from Shapiro’s remarks.
“Shapiro troublingly questions Israel’s ‘long-term intentions’ and openly cast doubt upon the seriousness of its desire to reach peace with the Palestinians,” Roskam wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon. “These remarks do not reflect reality, yet they serve to empower those who wish to delegitimize and marginalize the Jewish state.”
“In fact,” Roskam added, “the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement consistently seizes on this exact type of rhetoric to advance its insidious campaign to destroy Israel.”
As Israeli security forces work to combat the continuing wave of Palestinian terrorism, Shapiro’s comment are likely to add fuel to the anti-Israel fire, Roskam said.
“Now, more than ever, the United States must unequivocally stand with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East,” Roskam wrote. “Repeated public displays of disunity only serve to weaken our relationship, inhibit peace efforts, and incite further hatred. Ambassador Shapiro’s troubling remarks are counterproductive and wrong. I encourage you to reject these misguided comments and reaffirm out unbreakable support for Israel.”
Palestinian leaders, who have celebrated and encouraged the recent terror attacks, will likely seize upon Shapiro’s remarks.
“As Ambassador Shapiro was wrongly castigating Israel on the world stage, Palestinian leaders were unabashedly praising the Dafna’s killers and further inciting Palestinians to continue the ‘Intifada of Knives,’” he wrote. “Perpetuating falsities and placing undue and disproportionate blame on Israel for the stalled peace process is a harmful distraction from ongoing Palestinian terrorist attacks, which ultimately, make peace harder to achieve.”
“At their most basic level, the ambassadors’ comments are inaccurate,” Roskam said, referring to multiple efforts by Israel in the past decades to foster peace.
In 2005, for instance, Israel unilaterally dissented from the Gaza Strip, where the terror group Hamas quickly rose to power.
In 2008, then Prime Minster Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a comprehensive peace plan that would have equally divided Jerusalem. Abbas, however, declined.

IS AMERICA READY FOR SOCIALISM?

IS AMERICA READY FOR SOCIALISM? 
BY CHARLES SCALIGER
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/22349-is-america-ready-for-socialismrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
With Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders breathing down her neck, Democratic establishment candidate of choice Hillary Clinton is starting to “feel the Bern.” Optimistic Sanders supporters and some sympathetic pollsters are now pointing out that Sanders’ poll numbers vis-à-vis Clinton’s are much better than those of Candidate Obama’s at a comparable point in the 2008 campaign. By all accounts, Sanders is looking more and more like a legitimate contender, which brings up the question, articulated in the title of a recent Christian Science Monitor article: “Is America finally ready for socialism?”
As noted by article author Cathaleen Chen, a new poll “found that 43 percent of likely voters in the Feb. 1 Democratic Iowa caucuses would use the word ‘socialist’ to describe themselves.” Moreover, only 37 percent of those polled self-identified as “capitalist.”
Nor is this sort of thinking confined to comparatively liberal, Democratic Iowa. A national Gallup poll last June found that 47 percent of all voters surveyed nationwide would vote for a socialist, with the number rising to 59 percent among registered Democrats. A New York Times poll taken last fall found that 56 percent of Democrats were comfortable with socialism as a governing philosophy, while only 29 percent were not.
These are astonishing numbers. We are only a generation removed from an era when a presidential candidate such as George Bush in 1988 could effectively deep-six the campaign of his Democratic rival, Michael Dukakis, merely by labeling him a “liberal” and getting it to stick. Thanks in no small measure to the charisma of Bernie Sanders, socialism is becoming hip (occupying rhetorical territory once claimed by “progressivism” and “liberalism”), to the point where America faces the very real prospect of electing a professed socialist as president later this year.
There are some obvious contributing factors driving America’s new love affair with socialism. One is the fact that our old socialist nemeses, the Soviet Union and Red China, along with their satellite states, have undergone dramatic sociopolitical changes, allowing “democratic socialists” such as Bernie Sanders to portray Stalinism, Maoism, and other brands of Marxist totalitarianism as aberrations, instances of a benign philosophy taken to irrational, fanatical extremes. Instead Scandinavia — not the former Soviet Union — with its high standard of living, benevolent safety nets, and cheerful, well-to-do citizenries, is the real face of socialism, as Sanders never tires of telling his young, idealistic fan base.
Another factor in socialism’s current popularity is the ongoing economic crisis which — like the Great Depression 80 years ago — has provided cover for the enemies of freedom and laissez-faire capitalism to blame them, instead of an excess of Big Government, for the crisis. To the majority of Americans who have little idea how the Fed and fractional reserve banking work, or the extent to which government controls throttle free enterprise and distort pricing, the Great Recession was yet another example of the excesses of the free market wreaking havoc — excesses that supposedly needed to be brought to heel by more layers of regulatory oversight.
In many respects, the Great Recession and its aftermath — which we are still experiencing — were foreshadowed by the Great Depression of the 1930s. Then as now, many Americans’ faith in freedom was severely shaken, allowing the unscrupulous FDR to foist the New Deal, with all of its new and unconstitutional regulations, on an impoverished, desperate, unresisting electorate. It was the FDR era that brought about many of the first examples of Big Government control — federal gun laws, federal regulation of banks and financial markets, fiat money, Big Government make-work programs, Social Security, and federal welfare — that remain features of the American Nanny State to this day. It was the New Deal era, in fact, when America really began her long flirtation with socialism — flirtation that is now turning into a full-blown romance.
Sanders is right when he insists that the New Deal (as well as other Big Government schemes, such as Johnson’s Great Society, that have built upon it) is in fact socialism. He is also partly correct in pointing out that FDR’s famous “four freedoms” — freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear — meet with socialism’s stamp of approval. While the first two originated long before socialist theory, and were heartily approved of by the Founders, the latter two are purely socialist innovations. It is, after all, impossible to guarantee freedom from want and freedom from fear without compelling others to provide those goods. “Freedom from want” and “freedom from fear” are thus no different from other faux freedoms and rights promised by socialists, such as the “right” to medical care and employment.
The dreary truth is that America has been a partly socialist country since the early 20th century, even though the likes of FDR (and most Democratic politicians since) have been loath to call socialism by its real name. Not only that, socialism is no longer the guiding philosophy of “liberal Democrats” only; nearly all modern Republican politicians openly promote programs and institutions, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Federal Reserve system, that are socialist. Only a very few Republicans in Washington have the courage to oppose socialism on principle, while all Democrats, whether “moderate” or “radical,” are died-in-the-wool socialists by conviction.
The difference between Hillary Clinton and her rival from the Green Mountain State is one of style alone; in substance both are hard-core socialists. Among the Republicans vying for the chance to oppose them in the general election, only a couple are not at least milquetoast socialists, with the majority (including all the GOP establishment preferences, such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, as well as The Donald himself) unapologetically socialist in supporting the likes of the Fed, corporate welfare, and cherished “entitlement” programs that Americans allegedly cannot live without.
Thus the Sanders campaign is not so much about whether America is ready for socialism. It is about whether Americans are ready to be honest enough with themselves to call it by its real name — and perhaps, after generations of flirtation and romance with the arch foe of freedom — to finally call off the engagement.

MISSOURI LEGISLATORS DEMAND UNIVERSITY FIRE PROFESSOR MELISSA CLICK FOR FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

Missouri legislators demand university fire professor who violated First Amendment rights of student journalists

BELOW: MARK SCHIERBECKER, LEFT, & MELISSA CLICK 
Mark Schierbecker, left, and Melissa Click.
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/missouri-legislators-demand-university-fire-professor-who-violated-first-amendment-rights-of-student-journalists/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
(NaturalNews) Between what happened in Ferguson and on the campus of the state’s largest university, Missouri’s reputation has taken several hits over the past year. But one of the most memorable of all moments was when a communications professor at an institution believed to have started the country’s first official school of journalism, attempted to resort to violence in order to quash the First Amendment.
Now, it seems, she may finally have to answer for it.
As reported by Fox News, some Missouri state lawmakers are calling on the University of Missouri to fire Prof. Melissa Click, after calling for “some muscle” to eject a student reporter out of a demonstration that was being held on public property.
Click made national news in November when her attempt to get the student reporter tossed was captured on video and went viral. The student, who was attempting to file a report for ESPN, was on the school’s quad during a protest over alleged racism at the school.
“Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?” Click screamed out after correspondent Tim Tai refused to leave. “I need some muscle over here,” she said.
As Fox News reported further:
The Nov. 9 incident came as students protested the racial climate on campus and reacted to the earlier resignation of former school President Tim Wolfe. Video of the confrontation went viral and drew nearly 3 million views, igniting a nationwide debate on the First Amendment.

State lawmakers make their displeasure known

As the video and Click’s story continued to circulate around the country, critics seethed over the thought of a university professor not only taking an active part in a student-led protest, but also someone who is affiliated with the centuries-old journalism school attempting to thwart a reporter from reporting the news.
As a result, she lost her courtesy appointment in the journalism school, and was accused of assault and violations of Title IX, but she remains an untenured professor at the state’s namesake university.
But now, some 100 House Republicans in the state Legislature, and 18 members of the Senate, have penned a letter to the school’s board of curators demanding her “immediate firing,” Fox reports.
“The fact that, as a professor teaching the communication department and the school of journalism, she displayed such a complete disregard for the First Amendment rights of reporters should be enough to question her competency and aptitude for her job,” says the letter, written by Rep. Caleb Jones and Sen. Kurt Schaefer.
In addition, the lawmakers sought answers about Click’s taxpayer-funded research into goofy topics like 50 Shades of Grey, the entertainer Lady Gaga, and the Twilight series.
In recent days, one of the university’s curators, David Steelman, joined in the call for Click’s firing.
As reported by the Columbia Daily Tribune, Steelman, in an interview with the paper, acknowledged that the board has only limited authority to fire Click. And since he is not the board’s chairman, Steelman does not have the ability to place her continued employment on the board’s agenda.

‘An embarassment’

“She is not just an embarrassment to the university or the state of Missouri, she yelled ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Steelman said. “A great university cannot remain great unless it doesn’t tolerate professors who do that.”
At present, the board is conducting a search to replace former president, Tim Wolfe, who stepped down Nov. 9 after being pressured to do so by students who claimed his policies did not go far enough in reducing racism on campus, though the student body never really produced any evidence of widespread racism.
“The legislature … and the governor, who had his own statement, both of them recognize that Melissa Click’s actions were not just inappropriate but also potentially dangerous to students,” Steelman said. “I have no problem with a state that is putting half a billion dollars into the university wanting to have some oversight.”
The paper reported that a group of 116 faculty members at UM issued their own letter supporting Click.
________________________________________________________

University of Missouri Melissa Click Scandal Resulted in New Media Lesson for Old Media Institution (In-Depth)

It only took a couple of hours for the video to go viral; a bizarre confrontation between a student journalist and a communications professor during a protest at the University of Missourilast November.
And the fallout was unprecedented. Especially considering the university is home to the oldest journalism school in the United States, maybe even the world. An institution ranked first in the country by the Radio Television Digital News Association, which university officials say, sets the standards for journalism institutions.
In fact, less than a month after the viral incident, the RTDNA announced  it had created the First Amendment Defender award to present to Tim Tai, the student photojournalist who stood his ground snapping photos against the swarming crowd of suffocating protesters who were pushing and shoving him while chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!Tim Tai
But it was the other student photojournalist, Mark Schierbecker, who had recorded the altercation between Tai and the protesters, posting it online within hours.
And it was Schierbecker who was assaulted by the enraged communications professor named Melissa Click, who called for some muscle” to have him removed from an area he had every right to be in.
But rather than win a First Amendment award, Schierbecker was told by an editor at the independent student newspaper where he was a contributor to stop telling reporters he was a contributor, claiming it is a conflict of interest” now that he was part of the story.
Just three months earlier, his photo of a topless protest on campus, along with the accompanying article, generated the most views in the history of the Maneater’s website. That is, until November, when the stories of the resignations of University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin took the top spot.
On the other hand, the dean of the University of Missouri School of Journalism, David Kurpius, came to Tais defense the day after the viral incident, saying the student photojournalisthandled himself professionally and with poise” against the protesters, most who were students, but one who was another in-your-face faculty member named Janna Basler.
But the dean never mentioned Schierbecker in his statement, even though his right to record was also infringed upon, and even though it was his video that captured the confrontation.
The difference is that Schierbecker majored in history and Tai majored in journalism.
That meant that Tai was considered a “real” journalist in their eyes, a product of the prestigious program that proudly boasts of the “Missouri Method,” a meticulous approach to journalism where every story is vetted through several editors before publication.
Tai also spent a semester working at the Columbian Missourian, the award-winning newspaper that has been in existence since 1908, the year the school of journalism was founded. Only journalism majors are allowed to contribute to the Missourian, which gives it a sense of elitism.
And Schierbecker was considered a “citizen” journalist, which was why he was only allowed to contribute to the Maneater, the student-run newspaper founded in 1955 that runs independently from the school of journalism.
Not being indoctrinated in the Missouri Method, Schierbecker wasted no time in uploading the video to Facebook where it quickly went viral, taking a life of its own and becoming an even bigger story than the unfolding drama that was taking place on campus that day with the unexpected resignations of the top two administrators. 
Nevertheless, Schierbecker almost became an afterthought in the mainstream media and the student publications covering the story afterwards, which focused most of their attention on Tai and on Click, even though without his video, there would be no story.
The fact that Click was listed as an associate professor on the journalism school’s website left the esteemed program scrambling to distance itself from her rather than report the story.
And the fact that Click was listed as chairwoman of the Student Publications Committee, which oversees the Maneater, left that newspaper scrambling to distance itself from her rather than report the story.
The two publications, who pride themselves on taking journalism seriously, abiding by strict ethics, fierce reporting and unadulterated accuracy, ended up being scooped by almost every major news site in the country, even though the incident took place on their own campus.
The incident also raised the question as to whether or not the famed school of journalism has kept up with the ever-evolving media landscape where everybody and anybody is a potential journalist at any given moment.
After all, neither the Maneater nor the Missourian reported on the Melissa Click incident until the following day, even though it was being reported by everybody from the New York Times to CNN the day of the incident, not to mention going hugely viral on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
And when they did report on the incident, it was mostly to distance themselves from Click by explaining we should not believe what we are reading on the university’s websites because her role, in reality, had nothing to do with either newspaper.
In  fact, the dean of the journalism school – as well as several alumni and staff – accusedPhotography is Not a Crime of sloppy reporting because we associated Click with the school in our article, which like every other national news site, was posted before they posted their article on the incident.
But screenshots below show she was clearly associated with both the school of journalism and the Maneater through her role as chair of the Student Publications Committee. At least in name only.
But you can see they were also quick to remove her name as chair of the committee, leaving it vacant for a day or so before filling it with another name.
Melissa Click chair
Kurpius stressed how peeved he was that so many news sites inferred that Click was a journalism professor when she merely held a “courtesy appointment” position in the school of journalism.
“She is not a journalism professor, her courtesy appointment only had her working with doctorate students,” he said.
And had reporters been following the Missouri Method, they would have contacted the school to determine whether or not she was a journalism professor,” Kurpius added.
Instead, if they were like PINAC, they went on the school’s website to find her photo and profile on the school of journalism’s webpage, which listed her as an assistant professor, adjunct assistant professor, and if you keep reading, “courtesy faculty.”
That page has since been deleted but here is the screenshot.
Professor
At the time, the above page was accessed through a domain address that listed her as “staff” for the journalism school, a link that now redirects to her profile page at the Department of Communication, which falls under the School of Arts and Science, independent of the School of Journalism.
“That’s an error on our part,” Kurpius explained. “They made a mistake on how they built the website.”
As both newspapers tried to distance themselves from Click, Schierbecker fielded calls from journalists from all over the world while wondering if the Missourian would even contact him.
I waited all day for someone [from The Missourian] to reach out to me. It kind of surprised me,Schierbecker said. The Missourian has enough reporters and there are no shortage of reporters and students who were interested in covering this.
He was finally contacted by a reporter from the Missourian at 4:54 p.m. on November 10, more than 24 hours after the incident. By then, he had already been contacted by Buzzfeed, Breitbart, USA Today, Russia Today, the New York Daily News and CNN.
And he had also filed a criminal complaint against Click, which is still being reviewed by the prosecutor’s office.
But the reporter from the Missourian assumed he would not want to be interviewed, apparently figuring he would be indoctrinated by the Missouri Method and not want to be part of the story.
email columbian
However, Schierbecker has been very outspoken about this incident, not necessarily because he wants to be part of the story, but because he wants her criminally charged and terminated – as do many other people.
Tai, on the other hand, is taking the traditional journalistic role by offering little opinion, putting the incident behind him, saying only that he was there to do a job and he was not going to let them stop him from doing his job.
And Schierbecker is quick to say that Tai is well-deserving of the First Amendment Defender award considering how well he stood his ground against the mob of pushy protesters.
But he is not happy how the Maneater sent him an email telling him to remove his affiliation with the newspaper on his Facebook page.
email from maneater
He was stunned by the email from the Maneater considering less than three months earlier, they had him listed as a “senior staff photographer” in a photo topping the second most popular article on the site.
Here is the link to the conflict of interest he supposedly became by getting assaulted by the chair of the committee that oversees the Maneater.
He stated the following to PINAC in a Facebook message:
Clearly they are proud enough to take credit for my work when it works for them, but not when there are university politics involved.
The stories that didn’t run, the editor who didn’t get back to you, the typical screw-ups that typically come with being a scrappy student paper – they don’t matter to me. I’ve always been able to give them a pass on this because this is no one’s full-time job.
I think that as a newsroom, you back your reporters when they represent your values in their reporting, especially when they do so at their own peril. When I identified myself as a Maneater reporter to the media, I did so knowing that I had represented The Maneater well. I’m not looking for The Maneater to go to bat for me, but you don’t disinvite your reporters from reporting at their own newspaper.
I adhere to the Maneater editorial principle:
“If you want to keep us out, better bar the door. And don’t try getting rough or screaming ‘libel’ when a Maneater reporter crashes your meetings. When The Maneater gets mad, all hell is going to break loose. You’ve been warned.”
If The Maneater doesn’t feel that it can follow those standards anymore, then maybe they should consider changing their policy
He said the Maneater did not contact him about the Click story until Thursday, three days later, and did not interview him until the following Monday, one week later. By then, it was pretty much old news.
On December 31, the Maneater mentioned the photo he took for them in August on itsFacebook page as part of a countdown to the most popular stories of the year. Those two stories are also the most popular stories of all time.

maneater

The Missouri Method

In a telephone interview with PINAC, David Kurpius, dean of the Missouri School of Journalism, said they purposely chose not to prioritize on the incident because they were focusing on the resignations of the university president and chancellor.
He also stressed that a news story should never be about the journalist, which is a time-honored principle for journalists in the 20th century.
But if there is anything we’ve learned in the 21st century, especially here at PINAC, is that sometimes the journalist becomes the story whether he or she wants to or not.
The videos shows that neither Tai or Schierbecker sought out to be the story. They just became the story because they were trying to report the story. 
Kurpius, nevertheless, continued to stress the Missouri Method,  the practice of carefully confirming all the facts before publishing a story.
When it comes to social media (reporting) we see our responsibility being the same (as print),Kurpius said.
Even if it means getting the tweet up a minute later, we rather get it up slower and be right than faster and be wrong. First and wrong is not really first.
Veteran journalism professor Sandra Davidson, who teaches the Communications Law class and is the Missourian’s attorney, agreed with the dean, but acknowledges “the story flipped” from the resignations of the administrators to Tai and Click.
Yet she stands by the paper’s decision on holding off the story to avoid “a disaster.”
“Our jobs as journalists is to inform not misinform,” Davidson said. “I was horrified and angry. That was my initial reaction to the Melissa Click video. But, I did not have context. I only had a limited view of what had happened. We need to be accurate and giving context is ideal.”
But Schierbecker strongly disagrees. And clearly so did every other news outlet who covered the story.
“Just the video itself would have been enough,” Schierbecker said. “You would think they would have merited something.”
The Missouri Method is without a doubt, a solid, respectable approach to journalism. The kind of reporting that brought down the Nixon presidency in 1974.
But in many ways, it is an approach more suited for the pre-internet days of the 20th century where a newspaper article would not get published until the newspaper gets published, usually the following morning.
The rules have changed in this viral era of cyber news where a video can be published in minutes and be viewed by thousands within hours as it did in this case.
Today, it’s not only important to get it right. It’s important to get it first. Especially if it’s breaking news happening in your backyard. 
That is why it took Schierbecker less than three hours to post the video of the crazed professor slapping his camera and telling him he needed to “get out,” then calling for backup to have him physically removed when he asserted his right to remain there recording. 
Hey who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!” she yelled.
Schierbecker posted the video on his Facebook page  at 2:36 p.m., about three hours after the incident, and by 4:17 p.m., CNNs Senior Reporter for Media and Politics Dylan Byers was tweeting about it. 
By early evening, major news sites, including the Los Angeles Times’ Matt Pearce and The Daily Banter had run the story.
And by early Tuesday morning, it was the most popular story trending on social media, prompting ire from journalists and citizens alike.
But it was not until late Tuesday afternoon that both the Missourian and the Maneater published pieces about it.
Schierbecker says the delayed response in reporting on the incident from both university newspapers shows they have not evolved to journalism in the 21st century.
Even the Boston Herald covered this,” Schierbecker said. So did The New York Times and The Washington Post. Even if they covered it from the angle of this isnt the big story,’ they still should have informed their audience. They failed.
This is a very paper centric university,” Schierbecker added. We just finally got rid of our pay wall for the website a year ago to provide digital copies and access to students for free. The editor-in-chief of The Missourian (Tom Warhover) was very reluctant to do this. He was really dragging his heels.
Since the story broke, Kurpius says the journalism school used this incident “as a refresher” of the First Amendment and published an online guide discussing Freedom of the Press.
“We had 65,000 clicks in the first day we posted the guide on our site,” said Kurpius. “We really are trying to be the leaders in helping students and faculty grasp the First Amendment in its entirety. We care about transparency.”
But Schierbecker says it needs to do more while “gradually dragging themselves to the 21st century.”
“I noticed the journalism program does not emphasize on video enough,” said Schierbecker. “When I was recording the incident with Melissa Click I noticed no one else was recording this. They could have easily whipped out their smartphone. The journalism school is not teaching kids new media strategies.”
Click, whom Schierbecker says “obviously has not been trained in new media technology,” and lost her courtesy appointment in the school of journalism, reached out to Schierbecker via email after the incident.
“I’m the professor in the video you shot. I’d love to have the chance to talk with you,” Click asked Schierbecker in an email forwarded to PINAC.
Schierbecker and Tai both agreed to chat with her contingent on Click giving a public apology and discussing the viral video on-air in the school’s radio station KBIA 91.3FM.
“It would be for about 15 minutes,” Schierbecker responded to Click.
Click, whose been an assistant professor on campus for nearly a decade, never responded to his email.
“She has a tenure review this year,” said Schierbecker. “I am surprised she has not been fired or investigated.”

The Backlash Against Click

Last month, more than 100 republican Missouri legislators signed a letter to university administrators demanding that she and Basler, the other faculty member involved in the fracas, be fired, accusing Click of “inappropriate and criminal actions.”
On Wednesday, a member of the University of Missouri Board of Curators also began calling for her termination, saying she was an “embarrassment” to the university.
Also on Wednesday, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported about the 1,100 pages of Melissa Click’s emails it received through a public records request dated November 9.
In the emails, an array of professors, journalists and students expressed how Click should be fired for her actions towards Schierbecker. She also received refresher courses on the First Amendment, the Constitution and Freedom of the Press. Comparisons of her behavior to Putin’s Russia and Mao’s China were also in the mix of emails as well as many death and rape threats.
And the Facebook page, Hey Hey Ho Ho Melissa Click Needs to Go is still active with more than 1,300 followers.
And the Boone County Prosecutor’s Attorney’s Office may still file criminal charges against her.
However, more than 100 faculty members came to her defense this week, signing a letter in support of her, saying she was acting as “an ally to students who were protesting” and insisting she had been “wronged in the media.”
Only two of the faculty members were from the school of journalism.
And the writer of the letter neglected to capitalize the words “first amendment” while insisting on capitalizing the word “University,” even though the latter is not being used as part of a formal title. Screenshot is below.
That might be a minor detail to those who don’t obsess about the First Amendment or general style rules, but it is a huge detail to those of us who take the craft of journalism seriously.
And it is that disregard for the First Amendment that will always be associated with the University of Missouri as long as Click remains employed.
PINAC Publisher Carlos Miller contributed to this report.
Melissa Click letter
UPDATE: In order to keep this article from longer than it already did, we did not explain the issues that led to the protests on the University of Missouri campus because those were complex as well. However, Wikipedia does a nice job of putting it all into context. CM




FLOYD PROZANSKI’S OREGON GUN BILL “MOST DANGEROUS” EVER OFFERED

Senator Floyd Prozanski

Democrat – District 4 – South Lane and North Douglas Counties

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704   District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-415, Salem, Oregon 97301
District Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR 97440
Email: Sen.FloydProzanski@state.or.us
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/prozanski
OREGON GUN BILL “MOST DANGEROUS” 
EVER OFFERED 
BY BOB ADELMANN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22352-oregon-gun-bill-most-dangerous-ever-offeredrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
When the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) received a copy of draft legislation that could end a citizen’s Second Amendment rights with a phone call or an e-mail, it called it “one of the most dangerous pieces of anti-gun legislation we have ever seen.”
The bill, LC 250, offered by “committee” but drafted with the help of Democrat Senator Floyd Prozanski (who has a photo of himself shaking hands with President Obama on his Facebook page), states that “a reporter”
may make a report to the Department of State Police Firearms Unit that a person is experiencing a mental health emergency and poses a danger to self or others with a firearm.
The bill defines “a reporter” as a physician, a healthcare provider, a licensed mental health professional, an educator or principal or school employee who has had direct contact with the person, the person’s employer, or a family member of the person. Once the report has been received by police, the bill directs that “the department shall ensure that a firearms purchase hold record is created that prevents the person [from] purchas[ing] a firearm for a period of 30 days.”
Further, the person so accused will not be notified by the department that he no longer has his Second Amendment rights, nor will the name of the person making the accusation be made available. In addition, the person making the report “is immune from civil liability for making the report as long as the report is made in good faith.”
In its alert to its members, OFF wrote:
This bill will allow totally unqualified people to make anonymous accusations against others and claim those people are experiencing “mental health emergencies.” Those people lose their rights to buy a firearm.
Those accusations will not be investigated, the accused will not know the accusation has been made unless [he tries] to buy a gun nor will [he] be allowed to know who [his] accuser is or how long [his] rights will be suspended.
If the [accused] choose[s] to challenge the accusation, [he] assume[s] the full burden of proving [he is] not mentally ill [along with] all the expense.
OFF presented an example of how the bill, if passed, could disarm a woman who had just been threatened by her dangerous husband. He could make a phone call or send an e-mail to the police department expressing the opinion that his wife is loony and that the gun she intends to buy to defend herself against him might be used by her to harm herself. Officials from the department would block sales of a gun to her. Now disarmed, she is a perfect target whom the husband can attack at his leisure.
It seems evident that the bill is not meant to stop violence with guns, but to convince voters that politicians are trying. The issue of mental health is far too complex to be solved by an egregious overreach such as LC 250. Matt Millican, a certified mental health professional with an MA degree in Counseling Psychology, wrote in his blog, Mental Health Reflections:
We tend to over-simplify the issue of mental health in our society, not realizing just how broad and complex it can be….
We are being told that mental illnesses are to blame for the tragedies of our world — that we can test for, find and fix mental illness, keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and give mental health exams to gun owners — THEN we will be safe and all will be well.
Not only it this not true, it is impossible….
In the end, issues of violence and criminal behavior don’t start overnight, nor will they be solved overnight by background checks, mental health assessments, or simply removing the objects used to harm.
Using “mental health issues” as the latest battering ram to obliterate the Second Amendment has just been approved by the voice of the establishment, the New York Times. As noted here, Nicholas Kristof announced that the best approach to confiscating guns from innocents would be by ignoring due process, as proposed by the Oregon bill:
More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex.
Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders by 10 percent, one [unnamed] study found.
Oathkeepers, however, sees danger where the Times sees opportunity. If passed by the Democrat-controlled house and senate in Oregon and signed into law by anti-gun Governor Kate Brown, it could “be used as a template in other states as a further step toward the goal of citizen disarmament.”
________________________________________________________

Floyd Prozanski Admits Criminals Will Bypass “Universal Background Checks”

Rosenbaum Refuses To Condemn Prozanski’s Unethical Tactics

Published on Apr 10, 2014
Oregon state Senator Diane Rosenbaum and state Representative Carolyn Tomei try to intimidate a constituent, dodge his question, are caught lying about what transpired at the SB1551 hearing, and in the end threaten to kick out the videographer… All while never answer the original question, and, in turn, they refuse to condemn the unethical and shady behavior of Senator Floyd Prozanski leading up to and during the gun bill hearing, essentially meaning that they are OK with such shenanigans.

Visit www.2ndAction.org for a full account of the entire town hall.



ANNETTE SCHAVAN, GERMAN AMBASSADOR TO VATICAN: “ISLAM IS PART OF THE SOLUTION”~BECOMES ANOTHER SICK PUPPET OF A SICK POPE IN DENIAL OF REALITY

GERMAN AMBASSADOR JOINS WITH POPE IN SICK DENIAL OF REALITY; BECAUSE HE IS THE ALLEGED “VICAR OF CHRIST”?

ABOVE: ANNETTE SCHAVAN, GERMAN AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN

BELOW: German President Christan Wulff (C) and his wife Bettina Wulff (3rd from L) receive members of the German government, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2nd from L), at the annual Presidential New Year’s reception for citizens and public servants at Schloss Bellevue palace on January 12, 2012 in Berlin, Germany. Wulff says he refuses to resign despite mounting criticims over a personal loan he took while he was governor of Lower Saxony as well as accusations that he attempted to block Bild Zeitung tabloid from publishing a story about the loan.
“In 2012, a blogger with the pseudonym Robert Schmidt who is a member of the research-network VroniPlag Wiki alleged he had found plagiarism in Schavan’s PhD thesis, entitled “Character and conscience — Studies on the conditions, necessities, and demands on the development of conscience in the present day.” The University of Düsseldorf conducted an investigation into the plagiarism charge. Investigators found paraphrasing of secondary literature without naming the source in over 60 cases in the dissertation and thereby on 5 February 2013 revoked her doctorate degree because of “systematic and premeditated” deception.
On 9 February 2013, it was announced that Annette Schavan had offered to resign as minister, which was accepted by chancellor Angela Merkel. Schavan has denied any wrongdoing and indicated she would take legal action against the university.

Germany’s ambassador to the Vatican: 

“Islam…is part of the solution”

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/germanys-ambassador-to-the-vatican-islam-is-part-of-the-solutionrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Annette Schavan says: “There are warmongers who embrace religion. But that does not mean that religion promotes war. Religion has the great power to bring peace.” It doesn’t seem to occur to her that there is not a single unified entity called “religion,” or that different religions actually teach different values. She assumes that whatever is labeled “religion” teaches peace, and that anyone who commits violence in the name of “religion” must be importing his violent impulses from elsewhere, not deriving them from the teachings of “religion.”
She also says: “People are upset by the numerous attacks and wonder, ‘Should we equate these images of violence with Islam?’ One gets the impression that Islam is part of the problem. But that’s not true. It must become clear that it is part of the solution.” That is a fine assertion, but that’s all it is. Where have we ever actually seen Islam be part of the solution? Our expectations have become so low; if Islam were really a Religion of Peace that had been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, we could realistically expect to see a genuine mass Muslim movement against jihad terror comprising a significant segment of the Muslim population worldwide, dedicated to an honest reinterpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah so as to mitigate their capacity to incite violence. Instead, there is an avalanche of pro-forma Muslim condemnations of terror by groups such as CAIR, which has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, plus just a handful of Muslim individuals and groups who actually take a stand against jihad activity in all its forms, but have no significant following among Muslims. Many of the latter group, moreover, also deny that there is anything in the Islamic texts that needs reforming.
So we have yet to see Islam be “part of the solution,” but Annette Schavan and her colleagues are betting the future of Europe on the hope that it will “become” part of that solution, any day now.
“Germany’s Vatican ambassador: ‘Islam is part of the solution,’” DW, January 17, 2016:
Germany’s ambassador to the Vatican, Annette Schavan, still sees religion as a peacemaker, despite wars and terrorism. In an interview with DW, she calls for more interfaith dialogue and respect between all religions.
Deutsche Welle: After the New Year’s Eve harassment incidents in Cologne, a highly charged atmosphere with regard to migrants has developed in Germany. How do people in Rome assess the events in Germany?
Annette Schavan: The Vatican knows about all the new attempts to exploit religion as a justification for violence. Germany is viewed as a country that does a lot for refugees. The pope has explicitly commended this in his New Year’s speech.
Can religion today still serve as a peacemaker or has it already become a driving force behind wars?
There are warmongers who embrace religion. But that does not mean that religion promotes war. Religion has the great power to bring peace. People are upset by the numerous attacks and wonder, “Should we equate these images of violence with Islam?” One gets the impression that Islam is part of the problem. But that’s not true. It must become clear that it is part of the solution.
The pope has called on all Christians to take in refugees. In the current situation, does that sound like utopian neighborly love?
Germany has set an excellent example with its “culture of welcome,” which is still not a thing of the past. Of course, many people are anxious. That is exactly what the terrorists want. They do not want a culture of welcome for refugees. One of the things the refugees are fleeing is the terrorists. If we consider integration and welcoming culture to be utopian, then the terrorists have achieved a great deal….

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT SUGGESTS “UNREPENTANT” DONALD TRUMP IS A CHRISTIAN~LIBERTY’S APOSTATE ARMINIAN “WORKS GOSPEL” REVEALED

OXYMORON:
A SINLESS, BUT WORLDLY CANDIDATE WHO ALSO PROMISES TO GET THINGS DONE? 
BY EXECUTIVE ACTION AGAIN?

THE ENDORSEMENT THAT WASN’T:
PRESIDENT FALWELL PRAISES TRUMP’S BIBLICALLY “FRUITY” DONATIONS, PHILANTHROPY, GOOD WORKS, 
BUT HIDES HIS TRANSGRESSIONS:

HE CANNOT BE SAVED!
IN HIS OWN WORDS, PRESBYTERIAN CANDIDATE TRUMP HAS NEVER KNOWN OR SEEN THE NEED FOR REPENTANCE
In 2011, he told CBN he attended First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica Queens, which is part of the Presbyterian U.S.A. denomination.
AS SUCH, HE WILL NEVER APOLOGIZE OR CHANGE BEHAVIOR. AS A “NOMINAL, ‘PROFESSING’ CHRISTIAN”, HE HAS NEVER TESTIFIED TO BEING SAVED, (DESPITE CLAIMING HE HAS A “RELATIONSHIP” WITH GOD) & MAY NEVER HAVE EVEN HEARD THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IN HIS APOSTATE DENOMINATION.
THEN YOU HAVE DIVORCES, AFFAIRS, REMARRIAGES, EMINENT DOMAIN SEIZURES, OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, CASINOS PROMOTING VICES OF GAMBLING & DRINKING, ETC.
MATTHEW 7:15-23-“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

FALWELL’S APOSTATE ERROR FILLED “TEACHING MOMENT”
NO MENTION OF JESUS CHRIST BY FALWELL OR TRUMP HERE

Liberty University President Quotes Scripture Suggesting ‘Unrepentant’ Donald Trump is Christian During ‘Hero’s Welcome’

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/18/liberty-university-president-quotes-scripture-suggesting-unrepentant-trump-is-christian-during-heros-welcome/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LYNCHBURG, Va. — In what has been called a “hero’s welcome,” the thrice-married, unbridled-tongued professing Christian Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addressed an enormous crowd at what many consider the world’s largest Christian university on Monday, being lauded by the school’s president as a man who has “borne fruit” and “lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the Great Commandment.”
Jerry Falwell Jr. spent ten minutes providing an introduction for the presidential nominee, who asked reporters last year “why do I need to repent if I am not making mistakes,” painting a picture of a man whose life has been marked by good deeds.
“As our friendship has grown, so has my admiration for Mr. Trump,” Falwell stated.
He quoted Scripture in suggesting that Trump’s life comports with Christianity.
“Matthew 7:16 tells us that ‘By your fruits you shall know them.’ Donald Trump’s life has borne fruit,” Falwell said. “Fruit that has provided jobs to multitudes of people, in addition to the many he has helped with his generosity.”
“In my opinion, Mr. Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the Great Commandment,” he declared.
Falwell characterized Trump as a “breath of fresh air” and compared the presidential candidate and billionaire business mogul to his father, the late Jerry Falwell Sr. And while he said that Trump’s appearance was not an endorsement, he opined that “the American public is finally ready to elect a candidate who is not a career politician but rather who has succeeded in real life.”
During his speech, Trump told those gathered that he believes Christianity is under attack, and characterized himself as a Christian as he has done in other appearances.
“If you look what’s going on throughout the world … Christianity, it’s under siege,” Trump stated. “I’m Protestant. I’m very proud of it. Presbyterian to be exact, but I’m very proud of it.”
The Republican presidential candidate also quoted Scripture in vowing to protect religious freedom.
“2 Corinthians 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” he said. “And here, there is liberty.”
“Is that the one? Is that the one you like?” he asks, sounding awkward. “I think that’s the one you like because I loved it, and it’s so representative of what’s taking place.”
But some state that Liberty University, which has also invited non-Christians such as Mormon adherent Glenn Beck and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to speak to students, shouldn’t be so quick to declare Trump a born-again Christian.

Peroutka Peroutka

“God hasn’t given us the ability to read men’s hearts, but He does give us the duty to make judgments based on the fruit that we see,” 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate Michael Peroutka told Christian News Network. “And good fruit doesn’t come from a bad tree, and bad fruit doesn’t come from a good tree.”
“You have to examine someone’s actions and their speech and see whether or not that comports with what they self-declare,” he explained. “Even Satan quoted Scripture, so even the devil knows the Bible.”
David Whitney, pastor of Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Pasadena, Maryland, agreed. He noted several red flags surrounding Trump’s behavior indicating that the candidate does not bear the fruit of someone who is born again.
“One [concern] is how he treats other people and verbally denigrates them, showing a lack of respect. It seems to purvey his character that he cannot help but to ridicule, mock and denigrate,” Whitney said. “That does not comport with the kind of character that we see that Exodus 18:20 calls us to in terms of who we choose to be our rulers.”
He also noted concerns with Trump’s answer last summer at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit when asked if he has ever sought forgiveness for his sins.
“I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” Trump stated. “I think if I do something wrong, I think I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”
“This indicates that he thought his previous positions were not an issue, such as on abortion, that he should ask God for forgiveness,” Whitney said. “What about the affair that happened while he was married to another woman, and eventually divorced that woman and married the woman he was having an affair with? Clearly adultery was taking place, and if he doesn’t see anything wrong with that, it’s a huge problem…”

WhitneyWhitney

The pastor disagreed with Falwell’s statement that Trump has led a life of love and helping others, considering his ongoing casino enterprise.
“We know that gambling addictions are fed by his business as well as other businesses, so that’s not a loving thing to draw people further into their addiction and profit from their addiction,” he opined. “So I would not say that he’s following in the footsteps of Jesus with his life [as Falwell suggested]. That’s not to say that he hasn’t done good things in and of themselves, but there’s much to be repented of in his life.”
Jessica Taylor of NPR expressed similar thoughts.
“That’s right—the candidate currently leading among the most faith-filled voters is a twice-divorced casino mogul, who isn’t an active member of any church, once supported abortion rights, has a history of crass language—and who says he’s never asked God’s forgiveness for any of it,” she wrote in an article in November entitled “True Believer? Why Donald Trump Is The Choice Of The Religious Right.”
As previously reported, an estimated three dozen spiritual leaders, including a number of prosperity preachers, met with Trump in New York this past September, with some laying hands on him and praying for God’s wisdom and favor on the candidate.
“Father, we just secure him right now by the blood of Jesus. We thank you that no weapon formed against him will be able to prosper and any tongue that rises against him will be condemned according to the word of God,” Paula White, who leads New Destiny Christian Center in Florida, prayed. “I secure him. I secure his children. I secure his calling and his mantle.”
But both Peroutka and Whitney said that it is not wise for Christians to so blindly jump on the Trump train. They expressed disappointment that Trump was received so enthusiastically at Liberty University.
“I think that’s worrisome because there’s an implied endorsement,” Peroutka said. “Even if it’s not an official endorsement from the university, there’s an implication that somehow Christendom is somehow putting its stamp of approval on it. That’s regrettable.”
“It makes it appear that the Christian university is jumping on the bandwagon,” Whitney stated. “I think if the university had done it a way of not welcoming him as a hero but rather questioning him as a candidate, that would be a very different approach.”
Why is all of this important? The men note that Christians are commanded by God to select rulers that are “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” (Exodus 18:21) and that possessing an “anyone but Hillary” attitude is not a biblical mindset.
“I think that approach is fundamentally flawed,” Peroutka said. “The lesser of two evils, of course, is evil. And when you choose the lesser of two evils, you [still] choose evil. And when you choose evil and you get evil, you are responsible because you chose it, didn’t you?”
______________________________________________________

FALWELL NO THEOLOGICAL EXPERT EITHER


Jerry Falwell Jr. Takes to Fox News to Defend Donald Trump as Generous ‘Christian’

by HEATHER CLARK
EXCERPTS QUOTED IN FULL UNEDITED:
“He may not be a theological expert and he might say two Corinthians instead of second Corinthians, but when you look at the fruits of his life and all the people he’s provided jobs, I think that’s the true test of somebody’s Christianity not whether or not they use the right theological terms,” he stated.
“I would disagree with Jerry Falwell because although, yes, Trump has done many generous and good deeds, if he doesn’t have true living faith in Jesus Christ as his savior in understanding that he’s a sinner in need of salvation, then the many good deeds do not equate to the fruit that Jesus is talking about,” Pastor David Whitney of Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church and the Institute on the Constitution in Pasadena, Maryland, told Christian News Network.
“After all,” he said, “the prophet Isaiah said that all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Until we come to faith in Jesus Christ, any good things that we do are not seen in God’s eyes as truly acts that are good. The only good that a person can do is after they come to faith in Jesus Christ, and I think that that is the measure of the fruit that Jesus is referring to.”
So someone who would say, ‘I don’t ever see anything that I need to ask God forgiveness for,’ would not have a biblical understanding of their status before God and their need for Christ to be their savior.”
________________________________________________________
HYPOCRISY or BLINDLY JUMPING?
WHO ARE THEY TO CRITICIZE FALWELL OR TRUMP?
TRUMP CRITICIZED BY MEMBERS OF ANOTHER  THOROUGHLY APOSTATE DENOMINATION
BOTH WHITNEY (PASTOR) & PEROUTKA ATTEND THE CORNERSTONE EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH, IN PASADENA, MARYLAND
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT THE EFCA DENOMINATION:

EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF AMERICA-CONTEMPLATIVE, ECUMENICAL, EMERGING & INTERFAITH ASSOCIATIONS

EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH DESCENDS INTO APOSTASY PRACTICING & RECOMMENDING CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM


RUBIO’S MORAL, ETHICAL, & LEGAL RELATIVISM: “I DON’T THINK YOU’RE GOING TO ROUND UP & DEPORT 12 MILLION PEOPLE”~BUT FAILS TO MENTION THEIR ILLEGAL STATUS, AND HIS GANG OF EIGHT PARTICIPATION

THEY GAVE OBAMA EVERYTHING HE WANTED; SCREWED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
MARCO RUBIO, OUR NEXT 
“EXECUTIVE ORDER, GET THINGS DONE” DICTATOR?
RUBIO QUOTE: “So, for example, on immigration it is clear no comprehensive solution to immigration is going to pass.” 
(SO RUBIO WILL BYPASS CONGRESS JUST LIKE OBAMA?)


AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS EXCEPT FOR FELONS?
Rubio Expresses Continued Support
for Legalization During
“Meet The Press” Appearance

Published on Jan 18, 2016
In a video excerpt from the January 17, 2016, edition of “Meet the Press,” 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), criticized his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), for flip flopping on immigration and expressed his continued support for legalizing undocumented aliens who have not “been here for a very long time” and have not “committed a non-immigration-related crime.”

MINCING WORDS AGAIN SOUNDS LIKE BILL CLINTON’S LEGALESE
IT’S “REASONABLE” TO FLIP FLOP ON ILLEGALITY, DEPENDING ON CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES?
GANG OF EIGHT “POLITICAL ECUMENIST” 
SHOWS MORAL & LEGAL RELATIVISM AGAIN AND AGAIN
RUBIO EXPOSES CRUZ; CRUZ EXPOSES RUBIO

Rubio Defends Comprehensive Immigration Reform Votes on “Face the Nation”

Rubio: Law-abiding undocumented immigrants could stay

SEE: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marco-rubio-immigrants-217895republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Sen. Marco Rubio says people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but haven’t committed any major crimes could be allowed to stay.
In an interview airing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Florida contender for the Republican presidential nomination said felons shouldn’t be allowed to stay, but those who commit lesser crimes could still qualify. In this interview, he didn’t specify whether those allowed to stay would ever be able to become citizens.
Story Continued Below
“If you’re a criminal alien, no, you can’t stay. If you’re someone that hasn’t been here for a very long time, you can’t stay,” he said. “I don’t think you’re gonna round up and deport 12 million people.”
Rubio’s somewhat fluid position on immigration has been a target for his opponents because he was part of the Gang of Eight lawmakers who worked on the 2013 immigration reform bill, which included a path to citizenship.
“If circumstances change or you learn something along the way, it’s reasonable to say, ‘Maybe a different approach will work better,’” Rubio said. “So, for example, on immigration it is clear no comprehensive solution to immigration is going to pass.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marco-rubio-immigrants-217895#ixzz3xhuJ6auK

_______________________________________________________

CHUCK SCHUMER SAYS RUBIO’S FINGERPRINTS AR ALL OVER THE GANG OF EIGHT AMNESTY BILL
ASPIRING TO BE JUST LIKE OBAMA?
RUBIO: IT WON’T BE BY CONGRESS PASSING LAWS ON IMMIGRATION, 
BUT BY PRESIDENTIAL ACTION?
TELL RUBIO: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T JUST DISTRUST CONGRESS, BUT ALSO AN OUT OF CONTROL, LAW BREAKING PRESIDENT.

Sessions: Gang Of Eight Legislation
Dictated By Special Interests


NETANYAHU: “IRAN WILL NOW HAVE MORE RESOURCES TO DIVERT TO TERRORISM”~OBAMA RELEASES $400 MILLION OF FROZEN IRANIAN FUNDS & $1.3 BILLION IN INTEREST

ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Netanyahu3

YOU DON’T LISTEN TO FOOLS

PROVERBS 26:4-

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
KERRY’S IDIOTIC, FANTASIA “DIPLOMACY” 

DOESN’T PLAY WELL IN ISRAEL
(THE RISKS ARE MUCH HIGHER WITH THE CRIMINAL, INCOMPETENT, GLOBALIST PUPPET OBAMA STILL IN POWER, )
DEALS WITH THE DEVIL
ECHOES OF CHAMBERLAIN’S APPEASEMENT OF HITLER
AND YOU KNOW WHERE THAT LED TO

US to release $400 million in frozen funds to Iran, plus $1.3 billion in interest

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/us-to-release-400-in-frozen-funds-to-iran-plus-1-3-billion-in-interestrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Time for a fresh chorus of “Death to America!” in Tehran. Look how much the last one got them.
“Iran to receive $1.7 billion from the US in a claim settlement,” by David Lawder, Reuters, January 17, 2016:
The United States and Iran on Sunday settled a longstanding claim at the Hague, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest, the State Department said.
The funds were part of a trust fund once used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States but which was tied up for decades in litigation at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal.
The settlement announcement was made after Tehran released five American detainees in a prisoner swap as a nuclear deal was implemented.

_______________________________________________________

Netanyahu: “Iran will now have more resources to divert to terrorism”

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/netanyahu-iran-will-now-have-more-resources-to-divert-to-terrorismrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Can’t argue with that, Bibi.
“John Kerry Says the Middle East Is ‘Safer’ Thanks to Iran Deal Implementation — But That’s Not What Netanyahu Says,” by Sharona Schwartz, The Blaze, January 17, 2016:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran would free up more money for the Islamic Republic to pursue terrorism.
“What is clear is that Iran will now have more resources to divert to terrorism and its aggression in the region and around the world, and Israel is prepared to deal with any threat,” Netanyahu said at his weekly cabinet meeting, according to a transcript released by his office.
Netanyahu’s assessment stood in stark contrast with that of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who a day earlier said that both the world and the Middle East were now safer thanks to the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal.
“Today … the United States, our friends and allies in the Middle East, and the entire world are safer because the threat of a nuclear weapon has been reduced,” Kerry said Saturday in Vienna.
The Israeli leader vowed that his government would monitor “all of Iran’s international violations, including regarding the nuclear agreement, the ballistic missile agreement and terrorism.”
He also urged other countries to “enact severe and aggressive sanctions against each violation.”
“Were it not for our efforts to lead sanctions and thwart Iran’s nuclear program, Iran would have had nuclear weapons some time ago. Israel’s policy is exactly as it has been – not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu added….

________________________________________________________

Iran nuclear deal makes Middle East safer,
says John Kerry

PM Netanyahu’s Remarks at the Start of the Weekly Cabinet Meeting 

SEE: http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokeStart170116.aspx;
EXCERPT:

“What is clear is that Iran will now have more resources to divert to terrorism 
and its aggression in the region and around the world, and Israel is prepared 
to deal with any threat.”

MUSLIM STABS ISRAELI MOTHER OF SIX TO DEATH IN HER HOME

MUSLIM STABS ISRAELI MOTHER OF SIX 
TO DEATH IN HER HOME 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/muslim-stabs-israeli-mother-of-six-to-death-in-her-homerepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Terrorist on the Loose After Stabbing Israeli Woman to Death in West Bank,” by Chaim Levinson and Gili Cohen, Haaretz, January 17, 2016:
Israeli security forces are searching for a terrorist who stabbed an Israeli woman to death at her home in the West Bank settlement of Otniel and fled on Sunday.
A manhunt is underway and security forces are searching the area using drones, helicopters and dogs.
The victim has been identifed as Dafna Meir, a 39-year-old mother of six.
Three of her children were at home at the time of the attack. She struggled with the terrorist at the entrance of the home until he fled. The Israel Police are conducting a widespread search in the area in the southern Hebron Hills. Police called on Otniel residents to remain inside their homes.
The army said it believes that the assailant has fled to the adjacent Palestinian village of Khirbet Crama. As a result, the IDF has set up roadblocks in the area and forces have entered the village.
Noam Bar, a Magen David Adom medic who was called to the murder scene said: “We found an unconscious woman about 40 years old, who was not breathing and had no pulse. She suffered from stab wounds to her upper body.” He added extensive resuscitation efforts failed, and the victim was declared dead.
IDF forces search for Palestinian attacker who killed Dafni Meir in settlement of Otniel
An Otniel resident who was near the attack said: “I sat a few dozen meters from the home. I heard a scream. I didn’t understand what was happening. I saw him (the terrorist) running, within two-three seconds he was down below. At first I didn’t understand what was happening… I didn’t see his face at all.”
Meir was survived by her husband, Nathan, and six children. Meir was a licensed nurse who specialized in various issues of gynecology and Jewish legal aspects. She ran a clinic in Otniel, and she was a nurse at Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva. She also ran a blog.
The head of the Hebron Hills Regional Council, Yohai Damari, said: “The woman defended with all her soul the three children who were home. Otniel has seen these kinds of incidents. Otniel is in deep mourning and is prepared for the coming ones. We will only grow from this despicable murder. Nothing will stop us.”…

______________________________________________________

Renana, 15, eulogy for her mother Dafna Meir

Funeral of Terror Victim Dafna Meir


FRENCH REPORT:

Funérailles de Dafna Meir poignardée à mort par un palestinien toujours introuvable

FIREARM DEALER COUNTERS OBAMA’S PROPAGANDA ABOUT GUNS, PURCHASES, & BACKGROUND CHECKS

ERIC & CHAD FROM MOSS PAWN & GUN
JONESBORO, GEORGIA DISCUSS OBAMA’S “MISLEADING” STATEMENTS 
ABOUT GUN CONTROL
Published on Jan 12, 2016
In this video we discuss Obama’s new push for gun control through executive order rather than through the legislative process as it should be. All this cheap talk and emotional rhetoric is to play to the masses’ lack of knowledge on the process of legally obtaining firearms. We go over many of the lies and misinformation put out on this topic by the administration and urge everyone to educate those around you that don’t know any better.

CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE!
http://www.iraqveteran8888.com

Shirts & other Apparel:
http://www.1776united.com

Like us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/iraqveteran88…

Follow us on Instagram:
http://instagram.com/mrsiraqveteran8888/
http://instagram.com/chad_iv8888/

Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Iraqveteran8888

YouTube Hotline: (770) 692-9326
Moss Pawn and Gun
6382 Old Dixie Hwy
Jonesboro, GA, 30236

OBAMA ISSUES DISCRIMINATORY “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY” PROCLAMATION~THE KIND OF FREEDOM THAT PERSECUTES CHRISTIANS, BUT PROTECTS MUSLIMS

PERSECUTOR IN CHIEF: BY HIS PROCLAIMED DICTATE, CERTAIN RELIGIONS GET FULL FREEDOM; CHRISTIANS EXCEPTED

WHILE CHRISTIANS’ CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BELIEF & PRACTICE INFRINGED & CONTAINED

WILL YOU ACCEPT OBAMA’S 

DECEPTION, LIES & HYPOCRISY?

Obama Issues Proclamation 

for “Religious Freedom Day”

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/17/obama-issues-proclamation-for-religious-freedom-day/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — As Saturday marked the 23th annual Religious Freedom Day, Barack Obama released a statement recognizing the religious rights of Americans, while some Christian leaders expressed concern over the Obama administration’s infringements upon religious rights.
Religious Freedom Day, first proclaimed nationally in 1993, is based on the enactment of the 1786 Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. The law was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and became an influence in the crafting of the First Amendment.
The Virginia Statute declared in part that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
“Since our country’s founding, religious freedom has been heralded as one of our most cherished ideals,” Obama said in his proclamation.
“The right to practice religion freely has brought immigrants from all over the world to our shores, often in the face of great adversity, so they could live their lives in accordance with the dictates of their consciences,” he continued. “Some of America’s earliest settlers, the Pilgrims, arrived at our shores in search of a more tolerant society, free from religious persecution.”
Obama said that the White House has been working to protect the freedoms of Americans of all religions, and vowed to continue to do so.
“[M]y Administration is working to preserve religious liberty and enforce civil rights laws that protect religious freedom—including laws that protect employees from religious discrimination and require reasonable accommodation of religious practices on the job,” he stated.
“We will also continue to protect students from discrimination and harassment that is based on their faith, and we will continue to enforce hate crime laws, including those perpetrated based on a person’s actual or perceived religion,” Obama continued. “This work is crucial, particularly given the recent spike in reports of threats and violence against houses of worship, children, and adults simply because of their religious affiliation.”
But some pointed out the irony of Obama’s proclamation in light of his administration’s actions in recent years. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis said that Saturday could have instead been dubbed “Religious Erosion Day.”
“Sadly, Christians are increasingly being punished for standing on God’s word and living according to our beliefs based on the Bible. We’re seeing this happen over and over again—usually in regard to gay ‘marriage’ and the sanctity of life,” he wrote in a blog post. “Christians are being forced to affirm gay ‘marriages,’ and Christian organizations and companies are being told they better provide abortion services and medical insurance that includes abortive contraceptives and even abortion—or else!”
“In a recent address Obama even said that gay ‘marriage’ trumps religious freedom!” Ham stated. “He doesn’t really support religious freedom for everyone—he supports his own definition of freedom, one that increasingly excludes Bible-believing Christians from these protections and imposes an anti-God religion on the culture.”
But he exhorted Christians to be thankful for the liberties that we still have and to not neglect to obey Christ’s command to be salt and light in our nation.
“As Christians, we need to be bold in standing on God’s word, refusing to compromise with our increasingly secular culture. We need to be salt and light, spreading the message of the good news of the gospel to this world—this is what will change hearts and minds for now and eternity,” Ham declared. “We are free from the burden of our sin and death (Romans 6:22) because of what Jesus did for us on the cross. And that is true freedom that can never be taken away by any government or legislature!”
__________________________________________________________
REMEMBER THESE CHRISTIANS DENIED THEIR FREEDOMS, JAILED & FINED:
KIM DAVIS, MUNICIPAL CLERK WHO REFUSED GAY MARRIAGE LICENSES
JAILED
MELISSA & AARON KLEIN, BAKE SHOP; BANK ACCOUNTS SEIZED, AND LEVIED HUGE FINES BY OREGON STATE
BARONELLE STUTZMAN, FLORIST WHO REFUSED FLOWERS FOR GAY WEDDING; SUED

TINA MARSHALL, DENTIST; SUED FOR PLAYING CHRISTIAN MUSIC 

(Christian) Dentist Sued for Damages by Employees Allegedly Fired for Objecting to Playing Christian Music

BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

LAKE ORION, Mich. — A Michigan dentist is being sued by several of her former employees who were allegedly scolded or fired for objecting to the Christian music she played at her practice.
Dr. Tina Marshall of Lake Orion is facing accusations of discrimination and violating the Michigan Civil Rights Act over the matter, which involves four former employees: Kimberly Hinson, Nancy Kordus, Tammy Kulis and Sara Bambard.
According to reports, Marshall played Christian music and the local Christian radio station at her practice during business hours, and eventually left it playing overnight.
“Playing the Christian music is just to keep God on your mind. It’s just soothing to the spirit,” she told the Clarkston News. “I can’t tell you how many patients I have come in and just make comments that it is so calm in here. They’re like, ‘I’m at a dentist office. This is weird.’ And we just smile.”
But some of her employees were unhappy with being subjected to the music.
“I told her I did not think it was right to play the music all the time, as we had a wide range of religious beliefs as patients,” Kordus said in a statement. “She told me ‘you have to plant the seeds’ and the music had to be played 24/7 even if no one was in the building ‘to keep the demons out.'”
She said that several patients “questioned” the music being played, and so Kordus turned on the television instead.
“So I was ‘disobedient,’” Kordus stated.
The complaint against Marshall also claims that the dentist held prayer gatherings with staff each morning and also prayed over her patients. Her former employees claim that the morning prayers eventually became mandatory, but Marshall denies the allegation and says no one was ever required to pray with her.
Kordus claims that she wrote to Marshall in 2014 to ask that she stop pushing her religion on others, and was soon fired. Kulis said that she resigned over the matter.
Attorneys for Marshall have requested that the lawsuit be dismissed as the dentist disputes the claims.
“[Marshall is] being attacked in this lawsuit for her Christian beliefs, based solely on her desire to play religious music and radio stations in the dental office of the business that she owns,” attorney Keith Jablonski told the Washington Post.
“We believe that when the facts, and not baseless allegations, are presented to a jury, we will establish that this group of former disgruntled employees are simply looking to profit off of their own prejudices towards Dr. Marshall and her Christian faith,” he said.
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: http://www.oxfordleader.com/Articles-News-c-2016-01-06-260524.113121-sub14474.113121-Dentist-office-faces-lawsuit-for-alleged-religious-discrimination.htmlrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
January 06, 2016 - By Meg Peters Review Co-Editor Four former employees of Dr. Tina Marshall D.D.S. are seeking damages for alleged religious discrimination in a lawsuit against the Lake Orion dentist. Plaintiffs Kimberly Hinson, Nancy Kordus, Tammy Kulis and Sara Bambard are also suing Dr. Craig Stasio who helped Marshall restructure her office and its employees in 2015. Stasio is a state registered chiropractor who owns a chiropractic and massage therapy business in Clinton Township, and is also the leader of a religious ministry. The lawsuit was filed with the 6th Judicial Circuit of Oakland County. A jury trial was requested and may occur later this summer. During a restructuring of the dental office, almost all of Marshall's previous employees were fired or resigned, apart from one dental hygienist who still works for the practice. Of the plaintiffs, Hansin had worked for the practice, previously ran by Dr. Raphael Flajole, as a dental hygienist for about 32 years. Kordus began working for the practice as a dental assistant in about 1993, and Kulis at the front desk in 1994. The three became employees of Marshall when she purchased the practice in 2008. Bambard began working for Marshall in 2011 at the front desk. "My old staff was great. I wish they would have stayed and liked the music, but it was their choice," Marshall said. She is referring to the Christian music she began playing during office hours, which many of her staff had requested to turn off, and actually turned off, numerous times. According to the lawsuit Marshall began playing the Christian music after she and her daughter Brittney joined Stasio's ministry sometime in 2013. At first, the music only played during part of the day, the lawsuit states, however in time Marshall ordered the religious music be played at all times. "I told her I did not think it was right to play the music all the time, as we had a wide range of religious beliefs as patients.  She told me 'you have to plant the seeds' and the music had to be played 24/7 even if no one was in the building 'to keep the demons out,'" Kordus said in a statement. Marshall said playing the music was something she wanted to do at her practice, and was not meant to influence or brainwash anybody. More importantly, it is soothing to many patients. "Playing the Christian music is just to keep God on your mind. It's just soothing to the spirit. I can't tell you how many patients I have come in and just make comments that it is so calm in here. They're like, 'I'm at a dentist office. This is weird.' And we just smile," she said. Later she explained, "This is no more than church. If you go to church, that's what they're doing, is teaching you from the Bible and trying to make you more aware of the truth from the Bible." The lawsuit also states Marshall conducted daily morning prayers with the staff members, which started off as optional but soon became mandatory for all employees.  "It's never been mandatory. And it's never been more than just praying for a great day, that it runs smooth," Marshall said. The lawsuit also alleges that Marshall would pray over patients receiving dental treatment, hung religious pictures in her office, placed holy water at her front desk, and maintained a diary of religious activity that occurred at her practice. The front cover of the diary stated "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." One example of an excerpt of the diary according to the lawsuit states: "Nancy and Kristen realize there is only one God and that He is real and that Hell is real too." Another example of a diary excerpt states: "Pray Holy Spirit is present over the office at all times—especially tomorrow with prayer for our patients—or seeds be planted." The lawsuit also notes that each of the plaintiffs consistently objected to the religious practices during office hours. In 2014, Kordus provided written requests that Marshall refrain from pressuring staff from participating in the ministry's religious activities, and on August 21, 2014 Kordus was fired. Kulis' employment was constructively terminated on Oct. 30, 2014, the lawsuit states, as she was compelled to leave due to the religious harassment and discriminatory practices.  After a couple of her employees were terminated, Marshall had to replace them with interim employees who weren't as trained as they had claimed, Marshall said. With her current employees resisting the Christian music, and her interim employees not qualified enough, Marshall turned to Stasio. "That's when I was like this isn't working, Craig can you help me, and it worked out great," Marshall said. Marshall brought in Stasio and after two weeks the practice was restructured. Members of the religious ministry replaced the eight positions that were terminated, with the one employee remaining on as a dental hygienist. According to the lawsuit, Bambard was called into Marshall's office July 6, 2015, where she met Stasio. At that time Marshall told Bambard that Stasio was in charge, the lawsuit says. Stasio, according to the lawsuit, held up a stack of financial records to demonstrate how much control he had over the practice, and told Bambard she would be the new office manager and she would have to fire several other staff members. She claimed she was told she would also would be required to find new employees that would be accepting of the religious practices. To ensure this, Stasio participated in the hiring process, according to the lawsuit.  On July 16, Hinson was fired. The lawsuit states: "Defendant Stasio was enlisted to provide the 'help' Dr. Marshall needed in terminating the staff members that objected being exposed to the practices and beliefs of the ministry. Specifically, in regards to Plaintiff's objections to the Christian music, Defendant Craig Stasio stated to a journalist: "If she wanted to put a water fountain on one side of the office, and they wanted it on the other, that can't happen." Stasio added that Dr. Marshall "felt like a prisoner in her own office and that her employees were incompetent and disobeying Dr. Marshall." The lawsuit cites three counts of discrimination in violation of the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.  The first count cites religious discrimination, with the other two counts alleging age discrimination, and retaliation and conspiracy under the act.    According to the lawsuit, civil rights were violated when the plaintiffs were exposed to "unwelcome harassment because of their religion"; "failing to take prompt and effective action to cease the harassment"; "failing to take reasonable steps to protect plaintiffs from retaliation"; "unfairly disciplining and terminating  plaintiffs because of their religion"; and "otherwise discriminating against plaintiffs with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment." Stasio and Marshall have denied all claims.

U.S. EPISCOPALIANS SUSPENDED FROM FELLOWSHIP IN ANGLICAN COMMUNION OVER “GAY MARRIAGE” STANCE

ABOVE: GAY BISHOP “VICKY” GENE ROBINSON
The Rev. Michael Briggs, left, and the Rev. Ken Malcolm hug after Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, July 1 in Salt Lake City.
ABOVE: The Rev. Michael Briggs, left, and the Rev. Ken Malcolm hug after Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, July 1 in Salt Lake City. 
U.S. EPISCOPALIANS SUSPENDED FROM FELLOWSHIP IN ANGLICAN COMMUNION OVER “GAY MARRIAGE” STANCE 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/16/u-s-episcopalians-suspended-from-fellowship-in-anglican-communion-over-gay-marriage-stance/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LONDON — The Anglican Communion voted on Thursday to place a temporary suspension on the fellowship of the U.S. Episcopal “church” within its global body over the apostate denomination’s support for same-sex “marriage.”
For the next three years, Episcopalians will be banned from making policy decisions in the 85-million member Anglican Communion as a task force will be formed to work to restore the relationship.
According to reports, the Global Anglican Future Conference had requested sanctions against the Episcopalian body during the week-long meeting led by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and some even threatened to walk out of the meeting unless something was done about the matter.
In 2003, Episcopalians appointed their first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, and last year, the group voted to allow weddings between those of the same gender in their houses of worship, as well as to eliminate the terms “husband and wife” from the denominational rules on marriage. The developments caused friction within the fellowship, which is historically descended from the missional Church of England.
“This sanction is the ecclesiastical equivalent of being placed in ‘time out,’” said Jeff Walton of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in a statement. “But the goal of ‘time out’ is to change behavior, and the Episcopal Church has clearly spoken that it will not deviate from its chosen trajectory.”
“The primates who have taken this step have cited three reasons for doing so: the lack of reconciliation between the Episcopal Church and their provinces, obedience to Scripture, and the admonitions of the Book of Common Prayer,” he explained. “For them it’s a question of faithfulness to Jesus Christ.”
Anglican leaders of what is known as “Primates 2016” also released a statement on the matter.
“Recent developments in the Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage,” it reads in part. “All of us acknowledge that these developments have caused further deep pain throughout our Communion.”
The statement said that while unity is desired in the Communion, the Anglican Church cannot unite with those who hold to unbiblical doctrine.
“It is our unanimous desire to walk together,” leaders outlined. “However, given the seriousness of these matters, we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years the Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.”
_______________________________________________________

Anglicans Discipline US Episcopal Church over Gay Marriage

Published on Jan 15, 2016
Archbishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion voted Thursday to suspend the entire U.S. Episcopal Church over its embrace of same-sex marriage, which they said has caused “deep pain” and “deeper mistrust” in the denomination.

The vote by archbishops meeting in Canterbury, England, essentially directs Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to relegate almost 2 million American Episcopalians to non-voting “observer” status within their own communion.

Image: Primates of the Anglican Church meet at Canterbury Cathedral in England
Guides at Canterbury Cathedral during the Anglican Church meeting this week in Canterbury, England. Eddie Keogh / Reuters
Under the terms of the resolution, American Episcopalians and leaders will be stripped of their votes at Anglican conferences and assemblies, won’t be allowed to participate in decision-making “on issues of doctrine or polity” and can’t officially represent the Anglican Communion on interfaith commissions.

The action isn’t anywhere near as severe as expulsion or excommunication. But the Rev. Michael B. Curry, presiding bishop of the U.S. church, said it does cause “real pain” for American Episcopalians.

“For fellow disciples of Jesus in our church who are gay or lesbian, this will bring more pain,” Curry said in a statement distributed through the church’s Episcopal News Service.

“For many who have felt and been rejected by the church because of who they are, for many who have felt and been rejected by families and communities, our church opening itself in love was a sign of hope,” Curry said. “And this will add pain on top of pain.”

The U.S. branch of the church has been at odds with the parent communion ever since it elected the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003. Robinson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment, but he said Thursday on Twitter that Curry “speaks for me.”

“Gay” “Church” Rebuked by Street Preachers at Episcopal Church Cincinnati


PASTOR SAEED ABEDINI SET FREE IN PRISONER SWAP IN WHICH IRANIANS GOT MORE THAN THE U.S.~PROOF THAT OBAMA VALUES MUSLIMS MORE THAN CHRISTIANS

Abedini 4

American Pastor Imprisoned in Iran Set Free in Prisoner Swap

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/01/16/american-pastor-imprisoned-in-iran-set-free-in-prisoner-swap/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
KARAJ, Iran — An American pastor who has been imprisoned in Iran for over three years as part of an eight-year prison sentence has been set free in a prisoner swap between the U.S. and Iran.
“It is confirmed: Saeed is released!” Saeed Abedini’s wife Naghmeh posted on social media this morning.
As previously reported, Abedini, a former Iranian Muslim turned Christian, left Iran in 2005 and moved to the United States with his wife and two children to find religious freedom after facing conflict with authorities for planting house churches in the county. In 2012, he traveled back to Iran to build an orphanage and visit his parents—and was about to return to the states—when he was taken into custody.
Abedini was later charged with threatening the national security of Iran, and for attempting to turn youth in the nation away from Islam and toward Christianity. He was then sentenced to eight years in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, but was transferred to to Rajai Shahr Prison in 2013, which was believed to pose an even greater threat to Abedini’s health and safety.
He has experienced numerous beatings behind bars ever since, and has struggled with severe physical pain and threats that he would not be released until he returns to Islam.
Nonetheless, Abedini has encouraged Christians from behind bars to stand strong for their faith.
“[B]rothers and sisters, the fact of the gospel is that it is not only the story of Jesus, but it is the key of how we are to live and serve like Jesus,” he wrote in a letter in 2014.
“Today, we like Him should come out of our safe comfort zone in order to proclaim the word of life and salvation though faith in Jesus Christ and the penalty of sin that He paid on the cross and to proclaim His resurrection,” he said. “We should be able to tolerate the cold, the difficulties and the shame in order to serve God. We should be able to enter into the pain of the cold dark world.”
Abedini’s wife has worked tirelessly for her husband’s release, even meeting personally with Barack Obama last January along with the couple’s two young children.
In September, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told reporters during a visit to New York that he would consider setting Abedini free if the U.S. released Iranian citizens who were likewise being held.
“If the Americans take the appropriate actions vis-a-vis Iranian citizens who are being imprisoned here, then the right atmosphere and environment will be created for reciprocal action perhaps,” he told CNN’s Christianne Amanpour.
Now, according to reports, Iran has released four U.S. prisoners in exchange for seven Iranians being held in America.
“Prosecutor Abbas Jaafari told IRNA that four dual nationality Iranian-American prisoners, passing prison terms in Iran, will be exchanged with seven Iranian nationals languishing at the U.S. jails,” reports the Islamic Republic News Agency. “The settlement included a clause according to which the US will no longer pursue extradition of 14 Iranians for alleged involvement in purchasing arms from the US to Iran.”
Others expected to be released include Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and American businessman Siamak Namazi.
______________________________________________________

Obama Pardons 21 Iranians Convicted of Violating Sanctions

White House delayed new sanctions after Iran 
threatened to keep prisoners
by ADAM KREDO
SEE: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-pardons-21-iranians-convicted-of-violating-sanctions/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Obama administration confirmed late Sunday it had delayed the imposition of new ballistic missile sanctions on Iran to ensure the Islamic Republic released five imprisoned Americans under a secret agreement reached on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations, according to senior administration officials.
The officials confirmed that “secret” talks between U.S. and Iranian officials had been taking place for the past 14 months.
In exchange for the release of the five Americans—including a Washington Post reporter and Christian pastor—the Obama administration pardoned or dropped charges on 21 Iranians convicted of violating U.S. sanctions, including seven who had been detained in the United States, according to a State Department official who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on background.
Iran, however, said that the number of those “privileged by the deal” stands at 28, though it did not provide evidence to back this claim.
The administration decided earlier this month to delay the implementation of new sanctions on Iran as a result of its repeated test-firing of ballistic missiles, which violated United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting such activity.
The delay, which came hours after the administration announced the new sanctions to Congress, sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and led to accusations that the White House was capitulating to Iranian demands.
A senior Obama administration official, speaking only on background, confirmed that the sanctions were delayed to preserve the sensitive negotiations over the U.S. prisoners.
“With respect to the [sanctions] designations, yes … but I think it’s obviously fair to say that the key issue for us was we had these three different tracks going on,” the official told reporters on Sunday. “The most sensitive one was the one that pertained to our Americans whose release we were seeking. And we did not want to complicate what was a very sensitive and delicate effort to bring Americans home with that action.”
The administration decided to delay the sanctions not because of Iranian complaints, but because of “this sensitivity around making sure we’re not compromising our efforts to get the Americans out,” the official said.
Iranian officials further confirmed that they had threatened to walk away from prisoner talks if new sanctions were implemented.
Following the release of the Americans this weekend, the administration designated 11 Iranian entities and individuals for their role in the country’s ballistic missile program.
Iran’s defense minister dismissed the sanctions Monday and vowed that the country would continue to enhance its ballistic missile program.
“Attempts to impose new sanctions under the pretext of irrelevant excuses show the United States’ continued hostile policies and hatred towards the Iranian nation and its useless attempts to weaken Iran’s defense power, which are not helpful to regional security, stability and tranquility,” Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan was quoted as saying.
Additionally, Iran unveiled advanced nuclear centrifuges capable of enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, faster than the country’s previous models.
Those Iranians pardoned in exchange for the release of the five U.S. prisoners include major sanctions offenders accused of providing Tehran with money and technology to illegally fuel its nuclear research.
While the Obama administration acknowledged the pardon of 21 Iranians, the Islamic Republic’s foreign ministry announced on Monday that a total of 28 Iranian were freed or pardoned under the deal.
“An overall number of 28 Iranians were freed or were relieved of judicial restrictions within the framework of the agreement,” Hossein Jaberi, the foreign ministry spokesman, was quoted as telling reporters Monday.
Six of the Iranians confirmed to have been pardoned have dual U.S.-Iranian citizenship, and two plan to stay remain in America, according to ABC News, which outlined the backgrounds of the pardoned individuals.
Nader Modanlo, who has U.S. citizenship, had been handed an eight-year prison sentence for allegedly helping Iran launch its first satellite, according to ABC. Iran’s space program has long been seen as a cover for its efforts to develop advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
Khosrow Afghahi who co-owns power companies in the United States and Iran, was pardoned as part of the swap after being convicted of providing illegally technology to Tehran.
Bahram Mechanic, also a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, was indicted last year for allegedly funneling “millions of dollars in U.S. technology to Iran,” according to ABC. This technology could be applied to Iran’s “military systems, including surface-air and cruise missiles,” the report states.
Tooraj Faridi, a business partner of Afghahi, also stood accused of giving illegal technology to Iran. Faridi plans to continue living in Houston, Texas, according to his lawyer, who spoke to ABC.
Arash Ghahraman was pardoned over the weekend after being sentenced to more than six years in prison as a result of his effort to purchase military and maritime equipment on Iran’s behalf.
Nima Golestaneh, who had pled guilty to hacking U.S. defense contractors, was pardoned after being extradited from Turkey to America last year.
Ali Saboonchi was convicted in a U.S. court in 2014 of violating the Iran Trade Embargo by attempting to export industrial products to Iran. Saboonchi’s release “shows that he poses no danger to the American people,” his lawyer told ABC.
_________________________________________________________________

Obama delays new sanctions, pardons Iranians accused of helping Iran illegally fuel its nuclear research

by ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/obama-delays-new-sanctions-pardons-iranians-accused-of-helping-iran-illegally-fuel-its-nuclear-researchrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“Attempts to impose new sanctions under the pretext of irrelevant excuses show the United States’ continued hostile policies and hatred towards the Iranian nation and its useless attempts to weaken Iran’s defense power, which are not helpful to regional security, stability and tranquility,” said Iran’s Defense Minister. And so Obama helpfully complied with their wishes and delayed the new sanctions, which were for Iran’s repeated violation of UN resolutions prohibiting the test-firing of ballistic missiles.
It’s always the same question: what could possibly go wrong?
“Obama Pardons 21 Iranians Convicted of Violating Sanctions,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 18, 2016:
The Obama administration confirmed late Sunday it had delayed the imposition of new ballistic missile sanctions on Iran to ensure the Islamic Republic released five imprisoned Americans under a secret agreement reached on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations, according to senior administration officials.
The officials confirmed that “secret” talks between U.S. and Iranian officials had been taking place for the past 14 months.
In exchange for the release of the five Americans—including a Washington Post reporter and Christian pastor—the Obama administration pardoned or dropped charges on 21 Iranians convicted of violating U.S. sanctions, including seven who had been detained in the United States, according to a State Department official who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on background….
The administration decided earlier this month to delay the implementation of new sanctions on Iran as a result of its repeated test-firing of ballistic missiles, which violated United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting such activity.
The delay, which came hours after the administration announced the new sanctions to Congress, sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and led to accusations that the White House was capitulating to Iranian demands.
A senior Obama administration official, speaking only on background, confirmed that the sanctions were delayed to preserve the sensitive negotiations over the U.S. prisoners.
“With respect to the [sanctions] designations, yes … but I think it’s obviously fair to say that the key issue for us was we had these three different tracks going on,” the official told reporters on Sunday. “The most sensitive one was the one that pertained to our Americans whose release we were seeking. And we did not want to complicate what was a very sensitive and delicate effort to bring Americans home with that action.”
The administration decided to delay the sanctions not because of Iranian complaints, but because of “this sensitivity around making sure we’re not compromising our efforts to get the Americans out,” the official said.
Iranian officials further confirmed that they had threatened to walk away from prisoner talks if new sanctions were implemented….
“Attempts to impose new sanctions under the pretext of irrelevant excuses show the United States’ continued hostile policies and hatred towards the Iranian nation and its useless attempts to weaken Iran’s defense power, which are not helpful to regional security, stability and tranquility,” Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan was quoted as saying.Additionally, Iran unveiled advanced nuclear centrifuges capable of enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, faster than the country’s previous models.
Those Iranians pardoned in exchange for the release of the five U.S. prisoners include major sanctions offenders accused of providing Tehran with money and technology to illegally fuel its nuclear research.
While the Obama administration acknowledged the pardon of 21 Iranians, the Islamic Republic’s foreign ministry announced on Monday that a total of 28 Iranian were freed or pardoned under the deal.
“An overall number of 28 Iranians were freed or were relieved of judicial restrictions within the framework of the agreement,” Hossein Jaberi, the foreign ministry spokesman, was quoted as telling reporters Monday.
Six of the Iranians confirmed to have been pardoned have dual U.S.-Iranian citizenship, and two plan to stay remain in America, according to ABC News, which outlined the backgrounds of the pardoned individuals.
Nader Modanlo, who has U.S. citizenship, had been handed an eight-year prison sentence for allegedly helping Iran launch its first satellite, according to ABC. Iran’s space program has long been seen as a cover for its efforts to develop advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
Khosrow Afghahi who co-owns power companies in the United States and Iran, was pardoned as part of the swap after being convicted of providing illegally technology to Tehran.
Bahram Mechanic, also a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, was indicted last year for allegedly funneling “millions of dollars in U.S. technology to Iran,” according to ABC. This technology could be applied to Iran’s “military systems, including surface-air and cruise missiles,” the report states.
Tooraj Faridi, a business partner of Afghahi, also stood accused of giving illegal technology to Iran. Faridi plans to continue living in Houston, Texas, according to his lawyer, who spoke to ABC.
Arash Ghahraman was pardoned over the weekend after being sentenced to more than six years in prison as a result of his effort to purchase military and maritime equipment on Iran’s behalf.
Nima Golestaneh, who had pled guilty to hacking U.S. defense contractors, was pardoned after being extradited from Turkey to America last year….

______________________________________________________ 

SEE ALSO:

CHUCK BALDWIN CELEBRATES THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS “ECUMENICAL” BUT PATRIOTIC NON TAX EXEMPT CHURCH FELLOWSHIP

BIBLICAL SEPARATION APPARENTLY NOT BELIEVED OR PREACHED
“We will appeal to the fellowship to love the Brotherhood—and we will love those outside the Brotherhood as we have opportunity to do so.”

A NOBLE CAUSE TAINTED WITH ECUMENISM

CHUCK BALDWIN QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA: 
“Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right’s blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. . . . On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nation’s—and their own—survival. . . . Sadly, this is what the Christian Right just doesn’t get: ninety percent of the time, it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether a Republican or Democrat wins the White House. . . . All the pro-life, pro-family, traditional-values, conservative talk is just that: talk. Republicans use conservative rhetoric the same way Democrats use liberal rhetoric. Neither party believes what they are telling their constituents. They merely say what constituents want to hear in order to get elected; after which, they set about to do what their elitist, globalist manipulators tell them to do.”

“Happy Anniversary, Liberty Fellowship”

(Membership requirements not published on website; however Baldwin has verbally indicated his church is “open”, but will not tolerate “dissent”)
BY CHUCK BALDWIN
SEE: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3413/Happy-Anniversary-Liberty-Fellowship.aspxrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Published: Thursday, January 14, 2016

This Sunday, January 17, 2016, Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana, will mark its 5th Anniversary. Liberty Fellowship is an unorganized, unincorporated, and non-affiliated fellowship. And it is most definitely not a 501c3 non-profit organization–which means donations to Liberty Fellowship are NOT tax-deductible.
When my family and I first moved to Montana in October of 2010, to start this fellowship, we were told by “everyone” that such an endeavor was hopeless. I couldn’t count the number of preachers who told me that we would never make it, because Christian people simply would not support a fellowship (I refuse to use the word “church,” as the definition of the word in America is mostly defined solely by the IRS–and said definition is as unscriptural as it can possibly be) because their donations would not be tax-deductible. Very adamantly they said that a fellowship that was not tax-exempt could not financially survive.
Well folks, THIS SUNDAY is the 5th Anniversary of that non-tax-exempt fellowship. The critics and naysayers were wrong. I’m sure it’s true that in most “churches” the biggest reason people give is in order to receive a deduction on their income taxes at the end of the year. You don’t believe that? Just announce one Sunday that people’s’ offerings will no longer be deductible on their tax forms at the end of the year and see how many people stick around. But that’s NOT the reason people give at Liberty Fellowship.
Gee! What did Christians do for over 1,900 years of Church history when they gave their tithes and offerings and there was no IRS around to recognize it? For that matter, what do Christians around the world do today who give their tithes and offerings without there even being any such thing as a 501c3 tax-exempt status? I guess they just give because they believe in the message coming from the pulpit and want to do what’s right in the sight of God. What a novel idea.
Then again, why do most Christians attend the “church” they attend? Along with receiving their precious tax-deductions: to socialize with friends; to make business contacts; to let their kids play in all of the spiritual babysitting services known as “children’s programs”; to listen to warm and fuzzy feel-good speeches called “sermons”; to salve their conscience for all of their crooked, dishonest business practices during the week; and to jump up and down during the rock concert that occupies the vast majority of time in these so-called “worship services.”
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of America’s pastors today are the Pied Pipers of serfdom–shouting “Hallelujah” and “Praise the Lord” as they tickle the ears of these materialistically-minded and pleasure-mad sheeple that call themselves “Christians”–until both the blind guides and gullible followers fall into the ditch of tyranny.
I bet the pastor where you go to church has not said one word publically about Obama’s unlawful Executive Order further restricting the right of the American people to sell and purchase firearms, and that turns your family physician into a snoop for the government who can have your guns removed from your home without even a smidgen of accountability. I bet he hasn’t said one word of counsel or clarification about the Oregon occupation. I bet you went to this “church” all year last year and never heard your pastor give a word of instruction regarding Natural and Biblical law regarding anything that took place in our country–with the possible meek mention of something to do with abortion or gay rights. No! I bet you didn’t even hear him say a word when the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on homosexual marriage.
I realize that there are rare exceptions to the above; but they are just that: RARE.
Christian people will sit in front of a milquetoast preacher for thirty minutes on Sunday morning and hear NOTHING relevant to what’s happening in our country and then go home and watch FOX News for twenty-five hours a week (in between football games, of course). And if the pastor happens to inadvertently slip out a statement that contradicts what people heard on FOX News, they will deem the pastor a heretic. For all intents and purposes, in the minds of millions of professing “Christians,” FOX News is not a cable news network; it is a RELIGION. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are America’s pontiffs. Their word is gospel. No wonder we are screwed up.
The voices of the watchmen and shepherds are utterly silent. Christian people are lost in an echo chamber of political cacophony with no undergirding principles of truth to guide them. Truly, they are sheep having no shepherd. The Nineteenth Century British Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon absolutely nailed it when he said, “A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats.” That day is here.
Five years ago this Sunday, we launched an experiment called Liberty Fellowship. No rock music; no smoke; no light show; no gymnasium; no “children’s pastor”; no “worship leader”; no game room; no espresso café; no social “ministries”; no finance committees; no “education” committees; no “church growth” committees; in fact, there are no committees period.
At Liberty Fellowship, adults and children sit and listen to a man of God preach the Word of God with a heavy dose of Natural Law and the Biblical principles of liberty woven throughout. Oh, yes, we have a song service, too. It might last 15-20 minutes–usually including a vocalist or duet singing a song. Oh, and I don’t think I’ve heard Kumbaya yet. And, no, we own no buildings and have no plans to go into debt to get one.
During the week, our people actively teach one another various practical skills. They are loving and considerate, as are their children. Many of our folks homeschool their children. Most of them have made a huge sacrifice to be here. When the service is over, the auditorium is NOT empty in five minutes. Fellowship among the people is sweet and genuine.
The average sermon at Liberty Fellowship probably lasts between an hour and fifteen minutes and an hour and a half (some are even longer)–and nobody gets restless. Can you imagine nine- and ten-year-old children (and often younger) sitting up and paying attention to their pastor deliver a 90-minute sermon in almost any “church” in America? Oh! And during the first five years of the fellowship’s existence, over 450 people have made a profession of faith in Christ–that we know of.
People have moved from all over the country just to attend Liberty Fellowship. And an online Internet audience nationwide, comprised of people who wish they had such a fellowship in the town where they live, continues to grow.
Readers may watch our live online messages here:
In addition, all of our messages are archived online and may be viewed here:
Last year, our Liberty Church Project reached out to scores of pastors and churches, helping them to either withdraw from the government’s 501c3 non-profit status or to start brand new non-501c3 fellowships. Many of these folks are still in the early stages of planting new fellowships and are meeting together in small groups in either living rooms or public buildings. They watch our livestream messages and fellowship around the Biblical, Natural Law principles of Liberty.
Learn more about the Liberty Church Project here:
_______________________________________________________

The Black Regiment

(Providing a theologically diverse and ecumenical catalog of patriotic pastors, but with a disclaimer that appears to acknowledge and approve of, nevertheless, the value of association despite that which the Bible forbids.)
EXCERPT:
“Obviously, one will find various denominations and theological positions represented in this list. I am sure that I would not agree with some of the ministers on this list regarding various doctrines and methodology. I will leave it to each Christian to discern for himself the correctness, or lack thereof, of each ministry represented on this list. However, I rejoice over the efforts of any and all Christian ministers, regardless of denomination, who will courageously preach and promote the principles of liberty and independence. For the sake of this directory, we have added all those that requested to be included. As a disclaimer, I do not personally vouch for any of the ministries listed here.”

JOHN PIPER “REFORMED” NEO-EVANGELICAL PREACHER BECOMES DE FACTO GNOSTIC PACIFIST~ADVOCATES FOR CHRISTIANS TO BE MARTYRS IN HIS “SUICIDE CULT”

WHEN YOU’RE A “REFORMED” CALVINIST (OR TRY TO BE), YOU HAVE WISDOM THAT OTHERS DON’T

FROM: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/02/27/calvinism-greatest-god-sent-delusion-time/

The ultimate Calvinistic paradox 

(hidden in classical Roman Catholic Church Mystagogy)

How do you reconcile the paradox of a loving God who wants all people to be saved, because He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but sovereignly chose not to save the majority of people, because it is his good pleasure to send them to hell? You don’t, because it is a mystery hidden in the secret counsel of God.
By the by, this infamous and mysterious paradox is one of the shameless seeds of unrighteousness that has come from the Roman Catholic Church, and very quickly found a niche in Reformed Theology in the writings of John Calvin..

Famous Preacher Becomes De facto Pacifist! – Don Boys, Ph.D.

THE PIETIST MINDSET
JOHN PIPER BASHES THE SELF PROTECTION RIGHTS 
OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT; STATIST PRESUPPOSITIONS REVEALED, CONFIRMING HIS LONG DRIFT TOWARDS CATHOLICISM, CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM & SOCIAL JUSTICE 
“Reverend Piper’s article is about un-Godly Christian pacifism where the soul-saving words of Jesus Christ have been perverted into suicidal agitprop which enables the triumph of evil.” (BY RONALD R. CHERRY)




Acts 7:22-24-“And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. 

And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. 



And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian”







SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/famous-preacher-becomes-de-facto-pacifist-don-boys-ph-d/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
JOHN PIPER:
SELF DEFENSE “CONTRARY TO OUR MORAL SENTIMENTS”, THE YARDSTICK OF CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR? WE DON’T THINK SO
 John Piper is a well-respected, almost revered, preacher especially in Reformed groups; but recently he ran off the rails resulting in a minor train wreck. He discussed “Guns and Martyrdom” using the 1956 killing of five dedicated missionaries deep in the Amazon rain forest of Ecuador as basis for his blog. There is no doubt that that Ecuadorian event had a major impact on the world. The missionaries had guns yet only shot into the air not at the savages who were throwing deadly spears. All five men died in the piranha and crocodile infested Curaray River as it carried their innocent blood downstream into the jungle.
Dr. Piper reasons that the young men knew they were ready for Heaven but the savages were not so they basically committed suicide rather than take lives. But John is assuming that what the brave men did was the right thing to do; moreover that it was precedent-setting for all Christians to follow. That is two major leaps of logic.
Now I must add that there is no doubt God used that event to impress many hundreds of Christian workers to commit to missions. One of the widows and a sister of one of the men even went back to that heathen tribe and lived among them. Many in the tribe trusted Christ and two of the killers baptized the child of one of the missionaries in the river where the father died! After the son’s training, he ministered to the tribe who killed his father.
Their deaths impacted my life as a college student. And maybe what they did was God’s will; however, there is another side to this issue. Had the missionaries protected themselves and served another 30 years they might have reached multitudes more for Christ.
Whatever was “right” in that tragedy, it is no precedent for us today. We don’t decide “right” by human experiences. Lifetime principles are decided by the Bible.
Piper concluded that if someone breaks into his house the thief is “probably not ready for Heaven” so John would not use a gun to protect himself and his family! He ended his blog with, “I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun.” No doubt he is sincere but he is also senile! His explanation doesn’t explain his position.
The threat of being killed will deter many criminals. Criminals gravitate to “No gun Zones” and our homes should not be such. If a criminal is “not ready for Heaven” he had better not be found in our home. Piper is a Calvinist so why is there a problem shooting an intruder “not ready for Heaven?” I thought the elect were going to Heaven whether they wanted to or not.
Moreover, if you have children ten or twelve years old, can you be sure they are “ready for Heaven”? By not shooting the criminal, he may rape and shoot your children who “are not ready for Heaven”! You have sent your own child to Hell by such vapid thinking.

Piper obviously has placed the possible salvation of a rapist at a higher premium over everything, even the lives of family members. Therefore, to be consistent, he should demand the state do the same. No villain, no serial killer, or terrorist should be executed. That means anarchy. God commands government to execute criminals without regard for their souls. After all, society is at risk.
He said, “No, I am not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist principally, and I’m not a pacifist actively.” He believes hunting is permissible and cops should use billy clubs and guns to capture or kill bad guys. He believes in the military to counter aggression but he is confused as to personal protection. A homeowner should not kill an intruder; however the state can kill with impunity. He has fallen into the trap that many shallow thinkers have fallen into: the state can be trusted but individuals cannot be. He is really saying, “The state is the final authority. I bow to the state and submit to it.”
When asked if he would use a gun to protect his daughter, he answered, “probably.” Probably! John, your daughter and wife are going to be raped, maybe killed! Probably! When you took a wife you accepted responsibility to pamper, provide, and protect her.
He then asked whether he should shoot the bad guy in the chest, head, or leg. Or throw the gun at the bad guy. He opined, “And I believe that fathers should protect their children, even using force. But if they can avoid killing somebody, of course they should avoid killing somebody. And having a gun is a good way not to avoid killing somebody.” That is the epitome of fuzzy thinking.
Since each Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit, it is unwise to value the life of a law breaker over one’s own life for the dubious prospect of the thief trusting Christ in the future. The odds are unlikely since most people choose to not trust Him. That means the practical pacifist sacrificed the life of his family and his own life without accomplishing anything other than feeding the morticians or maybe purchasing them a new hearse. It also may mean that the killer will kill others who “are not ready for Heaven.” Moreover, there is no guarantee that the criminal will get saved after the pacifist has spared his life at the expense of his own!
Piper said, “We don’t need guns in our houses.” He is wrong. It is irresponsible not to have a gun. A gun is like a parachute: if you don’t have one when needed, you won’t need it again. Moreover, I would rather have a parachute and not need it than not have one when I need it. Same with a gun.
He finally said, “Those who live by the gun will die by the gun.” But those who permit the bad guys to have guns and refuse to arm themselves may die by the gun carried by the thief or rapist who can’t even spell pacifist. But they can fire a gun!
Although Jesus tells his followers in Luke 22:36 to go buy a sword, Piper argues that Jesus did not intend for his apostles to have swords in order to use them to “violently defend against persecution.” Maybe they intended to use the swords to cut their meat, to open envelopes, and to trim their nails!
Piper and those like him can choose whatever they please but they must give account for their actions. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and I will protect them with the help of two good friends: Smith and Wesson.
(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives; ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis, wrote columns for USA Today for eight years; authored 15 books and hundreds of columns and articles for Internet and print media publications; defended his beliefs on hundreds of talk shows. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com andwww.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
______________________________________________________
BEWARE OF GNOSTICISM
HAS PIPER CHANGED HIS MIND AGAIN BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED WISDOM COMING OUT OF HIS OWN MIND, RATHER THAN THE BIBLE?
SEE SOME OF WHAT HE HAS SAID IN THE PAST:
QUOTES FROM: 
To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. I don’t think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped. While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others.
_______________________________________________________

John Piper on Guns: 

Suicidal, Arminian, Pacifist, and Statist

SEE: http://faithandheritage.com/2013/02/john-piper-on-guns-suicidal-arminian-pacifist-and-statist/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A video of John Piper’s opinions on gun ownership and gun control is making its rounds online.
His statements are fraught with manifold errors, all of which deserve disentanglement:
1. Piper follows the modern evangelical praise for Jim Eliot and his comrades who gained “End of the Spear” fame through their so-called martyrdom at the hands, and spears, of savages. I am not one to derogate the deaths of those men, to denigrate the grief and suffering endured by their families, or to downplay the salvation of the tribe following their deaths – but it is simply wrong to praise them. Their deaths were instances of sinful suicide, improperly valuing the natives’ salvation and improperly subordinating their family’s (and their own) well-being. The tribe’s salvation was another instance of God’s providentially sifting good out of evil, not of His utilizing an instrument characteristically productive of salvation.
Probably, Piper would likewise mimic modern evangelicals in their comparison of the death of Eliot and his men to the crucifixion of our Savior, seeing the latter as providing moral justification for the former. If Jesus underwent the worst sufferings for the sake of the vilest sinners (not only those who directly slew Him, but even the “worst of sinners” in different times and places), then shouldn’t we do the same for our enemies in need of the gospel? Shouldn’t we likewise accept persecution and pray to the Father, “Forgive them; for they know not what they do”?
But this is specious moral reasoning. The mission of Christ was very specific and for an immense moral objective: the glorification of God in the salvation of the elect. Taking away the sin of the world is a moral end which justifies a greater degree of endured violence than lesser moral ends, such as the contingent, uncertain salvation of a single intruder. While acting for the salvation of others is a worthy and noble purpose, it is not the same purpose as procuring the salvation of the church, and therefore fewer means are morally permissible in fulfilling that purpose. Jesus’s suicide (if it can properly be called that) was morally justified by the solemnity and loftiness of His moral objective, but the same cannot necessarily be said of just any suicide done for the purpose of a particular person’s salvation. The value of preserving one’s own is a high end that frankly trumps the concern we ought to have for the salvation of a violent, albeit unbelieving, interloper.
2. Piper’s intolerably high concern for human salvation gives him a false view not merely on the practical-ethical concern of violently resisting violence, but also on the doctrinal-theological topic of salvation itself: in particular, the error of Arminianism. The Arminian view of salvation includes the disposition of God to universally redeem all of humanity, which disposition is constrained by a logically necessary restriction on God’s power, namely, the inability of God to move the human will. While a disposition in God to universally redeem all of humanity is within the stream of Reformed orthodoxy – though many Calvinists reject it outright – all Calvinists understand God’s intention in salvation to be “constrained,” not by any restriction of power, but by a free concern for His own glory. God wishes to glorify Himself in the gracious salvation of the elect and the just damnation of the reprobate; thus He decrees for both to occur. But in Arminianism, God is understood to have a predominant disposition to save humanity, that is, a disposition to save humanity all-things-considered (whereas the few Calvinists who believe in a universal-salvific love within God understand it as all-other-things-being-equal). This predominant salvific disposition in God entails that He would be unwilling to foreordain the just damnation of any sinner, even if He were capable of doing so. Hence on Arminianism, God is characterized by a supreme, primal concern for human salvation, deeming it an incommensurable good, and subordinating any concern He might have for the display of His justice. Arminianism is thus humanistic, placing a value upon human well-being far beyond moral boundaries.
This view of God is manifested in, or at the very least implied by, Piper’s idolatrously high concern for the salvation of violent attackers. He has no use for deadly violence, whether deterrent or retributive, insofar as it is used against unbelievers – and thus he shows himself to value human salvation more than any possible purpose for deadly violence! Capital punishment, even for the most heinous of crimes, is off-limits. All war, even for the justest of reasons, is off-limits. Defending his wife and daughters from the most monstrous of rapist-murderers is off-limits.  Can a more dangerous connection between aberrant theology and distorted ethics be found? But if he consistently accepts a Reformed view of the divine will and the divine justice, not seeing God’s own creation, providence, and justice as motivated by a paramount concern for human salvation, then his impious premium placed upon human salvation will abate until reaching permissible proportions. As it stands now, Piper might profess to value the glory of God over human salvation,1 but he clearly does not value any demonstration of just violence – a central means by which God is temporally and eternally glorified – over human salvation in any circumstance. This is practical Arminianism. Anyone who values his own family’s safety below the salvation of a violent intruder values human salvation too highly and, ironically, “is worse than an infidel.”
3. Piper claims not to be a pacifist, since he opposes only deadly violence, not all violence entirely. But such an idea is frankly absurd, as any permission of just violence must, to be consistent, permit some degree of violence to the death. Imagine Piper’s dream world, where the righteous do not utilize lethal violence, but only sufficient violence to achieve their objectives. Armed men come to arrest a convicted (and unbelieving) thief to take him to trial, and the thief resists. Should the men then inform him, “If you resist enough, not to worry, we won’t kill you”? Such a principle would constitute unbarred license for wicked men to overtake all of society! Should we expect God’s infinitely just and wise design of human society to include such an absurdity? Or should we instead concede that deadly violence is not sinful in every conceivable circumstance, and that deadly violence must be permissible if any violence is at all? Piper’s argumentation is implicitly pacifist, his protestations notwithstanding.
4. Near the end of his answer (around 4:15), Piper makes a rather sensible statement, arguing that we should not kill an attacker if we can avoid it. I agree with this statement, but its danger lies in what is unrevealed. First, he neglects to mention what his principled position is: specifically, that we can always avoid killing an attacker. He holds that opting for individual and corporate Christian suicide is morally preferable to slaying a belligerent unbeliever, and he thus denies that any circumstances can morally legitimize such a slaying. When he states that we should not kill people “if we can avoid it,” he is thus positing a useless qualification; he does not intend to convey that there are any situations where we can’t avoid it. For him, killing is always avoidable, so why would he state its avoidability as if it were a contingent condition?
Second, in the heat of the moment, great uncertainty looms over a number of contingencies: what the intruder intends to accomplish, how violent he is willing to be, how much a specific injury would harm him or slow him down, how much time one has to stop him, and so on. Due to these contingencies, and due to the high value of one’s own family, the benefit of the doubt should heavily lean towards the use of deadly violence. If there is an intruder in one’s home, then deadly force is almost certainly morally justified. Contrary to Piper, the immense uncertainty of the situation does not detract from, but precisely establishes, the moral propriety of slaying the interloper. This is why the Mosaic law exonerates a homeowner for killing a thief in the night but not in the day (Exodus 22:2-3), because the uncertainties in the event differ so largely between the two. Piper would have to pretend that fathers are given a huge list of alternatives from which they casually select their course of action, only some of which result in the intruder’s death. But the reality is that killing the invader is usually the safest option; the gravity and rapidity of the situation rarely permit lethal force to be evaluated as “avoidable.”
5. In principle, it is manifestly false that we ought to value salvation so highly as to passively murder our own families. But besides this revolting mistake in principle, Piper also makes a considerable mistake in fact. He has no idea whether a homeowner’s death will cause a greater chance of increased human salvation than otherwise. Certainly, the invader himself will have a greater chance of salvation than if he were killed on the spot, but other humans can be affected by the life or death of the parties involved. For example, it could very well be that, were the homeowner to survive the invasion, he would proceed to lead many other souls to salvation, souls which in God’s providence would not have been converted by a different means. Alternatively, it could be that the invader, if not killed that night, would go on to kill a number of other unconverted people, thus obliterating their chances of salvation.2 Or, to return to the example of Jim Eliot, the savages who speared his men, in witnessing their nonresistance, could have righteously interpreted their foreign religion as promoting weakness, cowardice, and a denial of healthy self-love, rejecting it on those grounds. (Similarly, it might have been that if Eliot’s men defended themselves, the remaining savages would have converted only due to the moral fortitude displayed in the men’s self-defense, and not otherwise.) We simply do not know how aggregate human salvation will be affected by our actions, so Piper is in error when he believes he is promoting human salvation in refusing to defend his family from an interloper.
6. While Piper professes a principled resistance to all deadly violence against unbelievers – again, because human salvation is an incommensurable good – he affirms an inconsistent double standard when applying the principle to the realm of civil government. He states his belief in deadly violence for cops and for the military, as if it were an obvious (and even pseudo-manly) fact that those guys should “take out” the bad guys; but he does not apprehend, or perhaps does not admit, his underlying statist presuppositions. The chief premise undergirding  “liberal” gun control propaganda is the moral superiority of the government over the populace, that the government can responsibly use arms but not civilians. Piper extends this statist sewage by maintaining not merely that the state alone should be equipped with weapons, but further that the state alone can permissibly use deadly violence. Civilians are forbidden in all circumstances from killing others, but not the state. This demands further reflection: if Piper holds that human salvation is such a momentous moral good that deadly violence is always forbidden, and if he simultaneously holds that the police and military are permitted to use deadly violence, then what is the conclusion? If he does not admit to contradiction, then no inference can remain except that the state is god. The disparate moral standards cannot otherwise be explained. The state is permitted to send people to hell, but civilians cannot use deadly force in even the direst of circumstances. “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ saith the State.”
John Piper’s guidance on gun ownership is not biblical or Reformed; neither is it safe. May his false teachings be discarded, even spurned. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

FOOTNOTES

  1. Undoubtedly he does. Evidence for this would be a book Piper has authored, God’s Passion for His Glory, which is an introduction to and commentary on Jonathan Edwards’s The End for Which God Created the World. Edwards’s answer is, of course, God’s supreme concern for His own glory. That Piper could write such a piece and still retain these insidious practical errors which contradict the doctrine displays both his opaqueness and the abundant mercy of God in restraining errant consistency. 
  2. I of course am not implying that any of these parties’ salvation would be “left to chance” or uncertain from God’s point of view, but it is still important to note that God employs means in salvation, and thus that various counter factuals can be true or false (e.g. “If X were true, then he would not be converted”). Consider, for instance, Matthew 11:23.

_________________________________________________________

Rebuttal of a Christian Pacifist
BY RONALD R. CHERRY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and 
research purposes:

Reverend John Piper recently wrote an essay advocating Christian pacifism in the face of mortal threats to life and limb. The following is a detailed rebuttal.


“As chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, I want to send a different message to our students, and to the readers of Desiring God, than Jerry Falwell, Jr. sent to the students of Liberty University in a campus chapel service on December 4… The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil.” Reverend John Piper


“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12: 17-21


It is not possible, nor does it depend on us, to live peaceably with Sharia-loving totalitarian Muslim jihadists, or with totalitarian Marxists or Fascists, because totalitarian control of the great mass of people by a small self-serving oligarchy, religious or secular, requires destruction of the people’s God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We did not overcome the disgusting evils of Nazi Germany and Soviet Communism by providing them with food and drink because the evil spoken of by the Apostle Paul was of a lesser order, i.e.: social enemies rather than totalitarian mortal enemies. It is not evil to oppose, resist and destroy evil, and will not be confused with repaying evil for evil in the minds of right-minded American Christians.


Reverend Jerry Falwell, Jr. has not called for Christians to arm themselves in order to enact vengeance against Muslim jihadists, or other murderers, rather he has expressed the intuitive, natural, God-given human instinct for self-defense and survival. Reverend John Piper has thus constructed a non-existent straw man, named it Jerry Falwell, Jr., and then attempted to rhetorically take him down.


“And then he [the Apostle Paul] said that God gave the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world…” Reverend John Piper


“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13: 1-4


Unlike the tyrannies of ancient times, and unlike modern Fascist or Marxist Dictatorships or Islamo-Fascist Dictatorships, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, the United States was founded on the God-given, natural, unalienable, equal rights of His created people. The Apostle Paul correctly tells us to obey good government, i.e.: government which secures the people’s natural rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but it is self-evident from both ancient and modern history that many governments become tyrannical and evil as they destroy the people’s God-given human rights, and thus their God-given human dignity and value. Evil tyrannical governments are a terror to good conduct, are not instituted by God – as with Pharaoh of Exodus, and become God’s enemy – not God’s servant. Notice that the Apostle Paul qualified government as an institution which is not a fearful terror to the people, and a Godly servant to the people’s good, thus we are not subject to evil rulers (evil governing authorities) which become an un-Godly fearful terror to their people, and a servant primarily of their own good to the detriment of the people’s good. Resistance to evil tyrannical government will not incur God’s judgment, rather the opposite, evil tyrannical government will incur God’s judgment.


“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God… I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

“Any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, ‘[The ruler] does not bear the sword in vain’ (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.” Reverend John Piper


First of all the United States is not a Democracy because our Founding Fathers understood that democratic majorities tend to become tyrannical oppressors of minorities, so our nation was created as a Declarational/Constitutional Republic whose laws (Constitution) secure all the people’s God-given unalienable human rights (Declaration). The American Republic, properly administered, does in fact deliver power to the people who, through their amendable Constitution, are the government. Therefore We the People do assume the role of sword-bearing ruler as in Romans 13, thus bringing just political power into compliance with Biblical revelation.


“The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson

“The people – the people – are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the menwho pervert it.” Abraham Lincoln


It is irrational, and I would add immoral, to assert that our American Government has an obligation to wield the sword in defense of its people, but not the people themselves.


“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.” Thomas Jefferson

“The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation… Peter’s aim for Christians as “sojourners and exiles” on the earth is not that we put our hope in the self-protecting rights of the second amendment, but in the revelation of Jesus Christ in glory (1 Peter 1:713;4:135:1). His aim is that we suffer well and show that our treasure is in heaven, not in self-preservation.” Reverend John Piper


“This is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.” 1 Peter 2:19


Yes, of course, if we suffer injustice and sorrow because of our Christian faith we will be rewarded in Heaven, but that is not the same as passively allowing others, particularly those people comprising an evil government, to physically maim or kill us our families or our neighbors without exercising self-defense for self-preservation. We should rejoice if we must suffer or die as Christians, but we are not commanded by the Apostle Peter that we must suffer and die, or to passively allow the suffering and death of our children or neighbors at the hands of evil people such as murderers, Islamic Jihadists, other terrorists or evil government. Peter’s aim is not that we should suffer well, but that we should suffer well if there is no way out – as always occurs under tyrannical governments devoid of a second amendment. The cure for suffering unjustly, whenever possible, is the overthrow of injustice and the establishment of justice, just as it occurred in our American Revolution.


“Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” Thomas Jefferson

“Jesus promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense… If we teach our students that they should carry guns, and then challenge them, ‘Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,’ do we really think that when the opportunity to lay down their lives comes, they will do what Jim Elliott and his friends did in Ecuador, and refuse to fire their pistols at their killers, while the spears plunged through their chests? Reverend John Piper


“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake. But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony… You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But not a hair of your head shall be lost. By your patience possess your souls.” Luke 21: 12-19


Jesus was warning the twelve Apostles in Luke 21 that they would be persecuted and that some would be put to death for speaking His gospel, and that they should make the best of their opportunities to speak, and be prepared for the worst, but Jesus’ last word on the subject follows in Luke 22 where he instructed the Apostles to buy swords for self-defense.


“When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Luke 22: 35-36


Reverend Piper expects the Christian students at Liberty University to lay down their lives when the time comes, i.e.: when a Muslim Jihadist or other terrorist starts shooting, stabbing or bombing, rather than exercise self-defense, and he has perverted the Word of God in so doing.


“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword into the sheath.'” John 18: 10-11


“But Jesus said to him [Peter], “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Matthew 26: 52


Jesus did not admonish Peter to get rid of his sword after cutting off the ear of a solder sent to arrest Jesus. He told Peter to re-sheathe his sword, which means Jesus told Peter to keep his sword for its proper use of self-defense. Peter’s mistake was to use the sword in an act of aggression when Jesus was arrested by the legal authorities; Peter was not using it in self-defense while someone was trying to murder him or Jesus. The legal officers who arrested Jesus carried swords too, but they did not strike Peter or Jesus with their swords, so it was Peter who used the sword in a wrong way, and Jesus called him on it, but Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword. Those who live by the sword through aggression often die violently, and justly so, but those who use the sword only in self-defense are known as our courageous heroes.


“When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death… I do not think that Jesus meant in verse 36 that his disciples were to henceforth be an armed band of preachers ready to use violence to defend themselves from persecution.” Reverend John Piper


Jesus knew that after his time on earth was done the Apostles and other followers would be placed in harm’s way, and Jesus did not want them to die at the hands of their enemies prior to an effective spreading the His Gospel. Luke 22, 35-36 is the Christian 2nd amendment. Jesus expected His Apostles to carry swords in self-defense so they could carry out their God-ordained mission. I believe likewise that Jesus does not want us to die at the hands of the enemies of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness today prior to our own God-ordained mission to live and love, labor creatively and to speak the Gospel of Christ in our own day. Jesus was Himself a pacifist, but, despite the assertions of Reverend Piper, Jesus did not order us to be pacifists.


“I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s in our pocket.” Reverend John Piper


As Christians we have hope in eternal life thanks to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but that is no reason to abandon hope for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in this world. Our hope for the former is in Jesus, and for the latter in our love of life, family and neighbors, in our creative labor, and in our God-given ability and responsibility to defend these precious gifts from God.


“Christians are freed to rejoice in persecution because our hearts have been so changed that we are more satisfied in the hope of heaven than in the hope of self-defense. This is the root of turning the other cheek and loving the enemy… A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?… This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question.” Reverend John Piper


“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” Matthew 5: 38-42

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5: 44-45


When Jesus instructed us to not resist an evil person and turn the other cheek, it is clear from the text that He was referencing social conflict, not life-threatening mortal conflict. Some Christians may be called to self-sacrificing pacifism – OK by me for them, but the vast majority of us are called to physically defend our own lives, and the lives of our families and neighbors. As Christians we are obliged to love our enemy, yet at the same time we are obliged to hate and if necessary destroy evil as it confronts us.


“The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil.” Proverbs 8:13

“Hate what is evil…” Romans 12:9


It is one thing for a Christian clergyman to advocate self-sacrificing pacifism for himself in the face of mortal danger, but quite another to advocate or force pacifism on others against their natural God-given will to live. No one on Earth has the authority to tolerate, through pacifism, maiming injury or death to their own family or neighbor at the hands of murderers, terrorists, Muslim jihadists or tyrannical government; that is not only cowardly and un-Christian, it is evil. As Christians we are under Divine obligation to provide, not only food and shelter for our families, without which physical harm would ensue, but also to provide safety from violent physical harm. Both the New and Old Testaments provide us with a resounding “yes” to the question posed by Reverend Piper: “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”


“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8

Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.”Leviticus 19:16


As Christians we are obliged by God to physically and courageously defend our families and thereby eschew the cowardice of un-Godly pacifism. Do not allow the Christian church to be perverted into the pacifist suicide cult advocated by Reverend Piper.


“The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God… In all the dangers Paul faced in the book of Acts, there is not a hint that he ever planned to carry or use a weapon for his defense against his adversaries. He was willing to appeal to the authorities in Philippi (Acts 16:37) and Jerusalem (Acts 22:25). But he never used a weapon to defend himself against persecution.” Reverend John Piper


“When they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.”Acts 5: 40-41


There is more than a hint that the Apostle Paul carried a sword for self-defense since Jesus, setting a precedent, commanded the other twelve Apostles to do so the night before His crucifixion. Unlike Peter who cut off the ear of a solder sent to arrest Jesus, we have no indication that Paul, after his conversion, used his sword unjustly outside of self-defense.


Early Christians were mostly helpless and disarmed subjects of a totalitarian Roman Emperor, not free men and women living in a Constitutional Republic dedicated to securing the people’s life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness, so we should not use the example of early Christian martyrs as a blueprint for present day America. These early Christians were unable to avoid persecution; they were defenseless serfs born with Roman saddles on their backs, but we are not. The injustice, persecution and tyranny of old Rome, and of Medieval Kings, has been overthrown by our Founding Fathers. As Americans we now have the protection of our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights by the grace of God.


“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Thomas Jefferson

“This article is about the people whom the Bible calls “refugees and exiles” on earth; namely, Christians. It’s about the fact that our weapons are not material, but spiritual… It is an argument that the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world… “as lambs in the midst of wolves”… And that exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ.” Reverend John Piper


Reverend Piper’s article is about un-Godly Christian pacifism where the soul-saving words of Jesus Christ have been perverted into suicidal agitprop which enables the triumph of evil.


“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

______________________________________________________________

Are You Opposed to People Owning Guns?

BY JOHN PIPER
SEE:http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/are-you-opposed-to-people-owning-gunsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The following is an edited transcript of the audio.
Are you opposed to people owning guns?
(This question stems from the last lines of a blog post John Piper wrote titled “Guns and Martyrdom.”)
The context of my comment was that the missionaries in 1956 who were martyred in Ecuador—Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youdarian, and Peter Fleming—were all speared to death, but they had guns. (This came out through research, and I saw it in a documentary.) And they shot their guns in the air as the spears were going through their chests. They could’ve saved their lives by just shooting horizontally, but they didn’t. They shot in the air because they decided earlier that they were ready to go to heaven but these natives were not. So why would they kill them rather than being killed themselves?
In relation to that, our Supreme Court just declared that the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes not just the right of a militia to bear arms, but the right of a person to have a firearm in his house.
And as I contemplated those two events—the missionaries’ decision and new decision of the Supreme Court—I thought, “If somebody enters my house as a thief, he probably is not ready to go to heaven either.” So then I just ended the blog with, “I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun.”
I’ve never had one. I’ve never owned a firearm. I had a pellet rifle when I was little and I killed squirrels. But I’m sort of ashamed of the way I killed squirrels, because I didn’t eat them or do anything with them. I just felt it was cool, and I don’t think that’s a very wholesome thing.
No, I am not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist principally, and I’m not a pacifist actively.
Somebody wrote and asked me, “Would you protect your daughter if you had a gun?” I wrote back a one-word answer, “Probably,” and what I meant by it was that the circumstances are so unpredictable. What would you do? Shoot the guy in the head? Or shoot him in the chest? How about the leg? Or just throw the gun at him, or hit him over the head with it? Of course I’m going to protect my daughter! But I’m not aiming to kill anybody, especially an intruder who doesn’t know Christ and would go straight to hell, probably. Why would I want to do that if I could avoid it?
So no, I’m not a pacifist. I believe there should be a militia, and I believe in policemen with billy clubs and guns who should take out guys who are killing people. And I believe in a military to protect a land from aggression. And I believe that fathers should protect their children, even using force. But if they can avoid killing somebody, of course they should avoid killing somebody. And having a gun is a good way not to avoid killing somebody.
We don’t need guns in our houses.
And I’m not against hunters. Don’t get on my case about that, saying that Piper doesn’t believe that you can have bows and arrows and rifles, etc.
And I’m not going to get in your face if you have a gun lying in your drawer. I just think it’s not very wise.
Those who live by the gun will die by the gun.
Thumb author john piper

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books.

A Biblical Response to John Piper’s Denial of the Right to Bear Arms

SEE:http://americanvision.org/12837/a-biblical-response-to-john-pipers-denial-of-the-right-to-bear-arms/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
John Piper has posted a response to Jerry Falwell, Jr’s. call for Christians to arm themselves and his provision for students to carry arms on the Liberty University campus. Piper’s position as outlined is about as close as one can come to individual pacifism without saying so. His response unfortunately ignores much of the context of the New Testament passages it cites, and ignores the Old Testament entirely. As such, I not only view it as unbiblical and disagree with it strongly, I think it would be dangerous and unloving for Christians to accept in society.
At the outset, Piper gives a qualification to illustrate he does not intend to give a comprehensive argument against self-defense in general, but he quickly undermines that qualification, and with each successive point, his position grows progressively absolute. He writes, “My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here.” He wants to narrow the argument: “The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question.”
While he never addresses these “significant situational ambiguities,” he keeps mentioning them while at the same time making broad, general statements like this: “The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.” That’s a very broad position which entails that unless they are agents of the civil government, Christians ought not to use lethal force at all. Thus, while he says he wants to leave that issue to the side because of its ambiguities, he immediately posits a policy which answers it in the negatively definitively.
Dr. Piper continues in this vein through the entire piece. And I think he feels his own inconsistency here, for he immediately sets up the contrary position as a straw man: “Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, ‘I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me’? My answer is, No.”
Simply put, nobody argues for this. This is not the position of Christian leaders who are trained and informed on the biblical view of defense. Not even Falwell, Jr.’s borderline-intemperate remarks are well represented by such an extreme position. To represent the pro-self-defense position this way is irresponsible on Dr. Piper’s part.
Piper then follows with nine considerations which he believes backs up his position, and one of these is broken into seven parts. I will not take the time to address them all at length, but only those couple that I believe are most central to his position. (Some of my more comprehensive biblical arguments can be found here and elsewhere.)
Piper’s primary argument is that Romans 12:17–13:4 prohibits private Christian individuals from engaging in vengeance. The power of the sword, the text says, it clearly left only to the civil government. And even though in a Republic like ours the people are the government, Paul did not envision “that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.”
While it is true that Paul (and Jesus, Matthew 5:38­–39) instruct against personal vengeance, and that the power of the sword belongs to civil government, this does not mean that God’s people are absolutely forbidden in any and all circumstances from self-defense of their lives or property, or especially the defense of the lives of loved ones and neighbors?
It is here that Piper’s problem resides most clearly in his understanding and use of Scripture. By abstracting passages like these not only from their historical context, but virtually any context, he absolutizes them to teach that citizens must always be passive before thieves, robbers, rapists, and murderers, and by extension terrorists, invaders, and tyrannical governments.
But is this how we handle Scripture?
No. First, Piper does not deal anywhere with clear Old Testament passages that instruct in both principle and practice that God’s people have the right even of lethal self-defense. Readers ought to be familiar with Exodus 22:2: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.”
The principle is that when an attacker attacks in a lethal situation, that attacker may legitimately be met with up to lethal force. The “no vengeance” principle is here overridden by exigency. It was for this reason that Jesus told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane to put away his drawn sword. It was not, as Piper alleges, because we are pilgrims who have no right to use swords. It was because Jesus was intimately familiar with the Old Testament principle: the moment you reveal yourself in public as a lethal threat, you make yourself a target for a lethal force defense. This is exactly why Jesus said what He did: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
Likewise, when King Ahasuerus granted the captive Jews the right to defend themselves against attackers it included the right “to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil” (Esther 8:11).
The Jews knew that the Scriptures allowed them the right of self-defense already, but they knew spoiling the attacker was across the line. So when the time came, they openly defended themselves: “the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying” (Esther 9:5); but note: “they did not lay their hands on the plunder” (Esther 9:10).
This law and example are clear, and they are not rescinded by New Testament teachings. Indeed, while Christian pietists like Piper may be tempted to say the “No vengeance” principle is a New Testament principle which does away with the Old, the truth is just the opposite. To establish that principle in Romans 12:19–20, Paul quotes two Old Testament passages: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” is quoted directly from Deuteronomy 32:35 (the Old Testament law!). The following statement about loving your enemy is taken directly from Proverbs 25:21–22, which is itself based again upon Old Testament law (Exodus 23:4–5).
So it will not suffice to argue that the “No vengeance” principle is a New Testament improvement upon the Old. That principle is itself an Old Testament principle.
But this means we must realize it is perfectly reconcilable with the rest of the Old Testament law which, despite including the principle against personal vengeance, also make allowances for self-defense and lethal force when appropriate. The two principles are not at odds; they are perfectly in accord as they apply in different situations and contexts.
Thus, it is here where Piper’s view of Scripture seems to be molded and shaped by pietism and an unacceptable neglect of the Old Testament which together would leave Christian families defenseless before violent attackers. This reflects the kind of New Testament-only heresy which creates the pietist-humanist alliance—a capitulation and neglect on the part of Christian leaders which leaves social issues to the whims of Bible-hating liberals who are all too eager to accept the gift. I won’t stand for it. Read the Old Testament basis for your New Testament principles, and then accept that that basis demands the balance of the Old Testament as well except where explicitly replaced.
But Piper is shockingly consistent with his New Testament-only position of defenselessness, and it is here that his argument get most troubling. He argues that one retort to his position will boil down to, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant.” What should be a no-brainer biblically speaking, Piper calls an “instinct” and offers seven points on his way to answering “No.”
I was shocked and appalled that Piper is so anti-gun and anti-defense that he expects Christians to stand by watching their wife or children being assaulted, raped, or murdered before their very eyes without reacting in defense. He doesn’t like to accept that his answer is “No,” and even says there is no direct answer, but then again immediately makes it clear: “there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military.”
This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Why would the God of the Old Testament give clear guidelines for self-defense in such cases, but suddenly in the New Testament retract them and give that right only to a handful of government agents who can’t get to the scene any more quickly than an average of 10 minutes? What love is this?
People let’s be clear. Police, for what good they do, do not protect you from criminals, rapists, and murderers. Police more often than not show up late and write reports about what happened before they got there. Your wife’s best hope at this moment is a gun in her husband’s hand. That would be the most Christ-honoring item that could be on the scene.
I am shocked and saddened as I read Piper’s defense of this position. When viewing his wife being raped, he would contemplate within himself: “Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.”
NO. There is only one variable in this situation: the angle at which you shoot the rapist in the head.
There is one principle at play here, and it is another Old Testament principle repeated nine times in the New Testament: love your neighbor as yourself. How is it showing Christ’s love if we allow someone’s to be raped or murdered before us and do nothing? There are no variables here. The love of neighbor compels every person to protect innocent life and to level criminals who have made themselves a lethal threat.
If Paul said that a person who merely doesn’t provide for their family is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith (1 Tim. 5:8), what in the world do you think He would say of a guy who sat contemplating pious platitudes while his family was beaten and slaughtered before him?
Piper continues applying his principle: “I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.”
I would counsel Christians to listen to someone who has not made the love of Christ a meaningless abstraction. Arm yourself Christian. Love your neighbor as yourself.
In closing, Piper hits upon a theme he mentions several times. He argues that we are pilgrims in this world, and that Jesus told us to expect “violent hostility.” We should just remember that we are lambs among wolves, and that our lot is not to shoot the wolves but resign ourselves to be devoured.
Let’s just say that this was part of the truth when the disciples were facing a persecuting government where armed resistance would have been not only futile but would have been met with government force as sedition. But as I have made clear here and here and elsewhere, the “pilgrim” motif of the New Testament was a temporary phenomenon for that generation until the persecuting authorities of the unbelieving Jewish culture were destroyed. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the disciples had arrived at the Zion that Abraham sought, and it was not something they should wait to expect until after they died.
Even if it were the case that we are still in a “pilgrim” situation, it would still not invalidate the abiding aspects of the love commanded the Old Testament consistent with self-defense. Christians have the right to self-defense, home-defense, and the defense of relatives and neighbors.
To say otherwise is to neglect too much of the Bible, and indeed that’s what Piper’s article actually does: it neglects the context of what it quotes and neglects the Old Testament entirely. For that reason, and for demanding Christians stand idly by while criminals attack and murder people, even family, and indeed even to check introspectively one’s heart even before calling the police for help (!)—Piper’s position is dangerous to society.
Further, it is indicative of those who categorically reject the Old Testament as informative of the New. It is symptomatic of pietistic (closet) Christianity, and those “two-kingdoms” types who say the Bible has nothing to say to the public square. It’s time to abandon all of those positions and adopt a robust biblical worldview that puts the love of God and love of neighbor into practical action in the ways Scripture commands and illustrates—and that includes the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.
Like I said, we have not dealt all we could with Piper’s comments, but these hit the core of why his position is unbiblical. It is divorced from the context of Scripture and denies what the Bible teaches regarding something as central and foundational as loving your neighbor. His views are pietistic. Where the Bible speaks to such areas of life, he ignores it, and subverts the principles by transforming them into issues only of abstract love of the individual contemplating him own heart in the prayer closet. I say we let the Bible speak to all of life like it does, and then apply it wherever it speaks. And be well armed and trained in arms while doing so. (And find a seminary or college that will allow you to do so.)
ARE YOU OPPOSED TO PEOPLE OWNING GUNS?

John Piper and Gun Control: A Critique

Guns, Self Defense and the Christian:
Amish, Mennonites & Quakers
Take The Unbiblical Pacifist View

Wretched Radio with Todd Friel – John Piper, Beth Moore, and Lectio Divina at Passion 2012





1 697 698 699 700 701 793