"They know not what they do" the words of Jesus the Christ from the cross.
Or do they?
First Christ said: "Forgive them, Father (God)!
Do the PONS/ACTIVISTS actually know which subversive leaders are putting them up to it?
Blind? Stupid? Are the not so blind leading the truly blind? That's probably the question we should be asking first, and the second question--who are the not so blind???
Subversive forces in this country are hell-bent on destroying what God (and our forefathers) helped to create with much blood, sweat and tears, over many years...(1776-2018)--242 years.
We shouldn't let them get away with it. "Them" are the cruel leaders of the blind and ignorant (wet behind the ears) individuals who have never learned their history (thanks to their public school "educations" nor do they even care. Anything before the Beatles is totally irrelevant to them.
"They" are ignorant like sheep led to the slaughter, young people, ages 16-25, who have NO IN-vested interest in our country...just what their subversive leaders are counting on...people who are young, excitable, and with NO sound foundation of history or any kind of patriotism. Most of them have no clue about our real history--and they don't care to learn! Many are just the drop-outs of life, the ones who have tuned out and dropped out--the impressionable and the gullible--who seem to think they are all brilliant! However, ignorance is what the purveyors of subversion are depending on to enable them to carry out their subversive and covert activities. And it's happening now--right before our eyes. Democrats (and some Republicans) are desperate and are taking desperate measures..i.e. Desperados!
With the influx of illegal immigrants, the intent is to destroy our culture by FLOODING our country with many NON-Christian attitudes and UN-controlled individuals who have NO intent to assimilate into our culture, or learn our language, which is for legal immigrants imperative.
This Movement is not just a fun game for the power brokers behind the insurrection in the streets. They are in it for keeps. For them the USA is something to be torn down!!!
The Socialist/Marxist/Communist Movement did NOT just happen by accident; it has been ongoing since before our UN"Civil War". Control of our educational system has been THE MAJOR PART of our problem since then.
By NOT re-enforcing REAL history in the public schools, the National Education Association is intentionally allowing Negligence to exist.
Ask yourself why so few of our young people (from the age of 10 and clear through 50) know any real history. Not even attorneys, most Congressmen...Senators and Representatives. Those who are supposed to represent our interests DON'T.
Fortunately Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Joe Pags and other people in the alternate media do. They know what's going on out here--all the stuff the mainstream media thinks we are better off not knowing about. So we are informed. But, we (the vast majority of us) are allowing this charade to continue. People are being hurt in so many ways because NO leader (but Trump) is stepping up and Stopping the Out of control Left. Leaders, where are you???
Political commentary by Sam Schwartz
Showing posts with label Apostasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apostasy. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2018
Saturday, August 06, 2016
Evolution and Spiritualism--Darwin and Wallace
by Al Benson Jr.
I can remember, years back now, hearing a preacher in West Virginia talk about evolution. He was, as they say "agin it" and he gave some pretty fair country reasons for his position. One thing he said that I never forgot was that the theory of evolution absolves man from any accountability to God for his actions. If man is nothing more than a highly "evolved" animal then he is accountable to no one for his actions, no matter how good or evil they may be. He is just doing what "comes naturally" since he has no creator. If that's the case, you have to wonder why so many people get mad over what Hitler and Stalin did. If they are responsible to no one and to no God then how can anyone condemn their actions? The Illuminist forebears of the perpetrators of the French Revolution were absolutely shocked at the thought that they might, somehow, be responsible for their actions.The very thought was anathema to them.
So you can see that, among those that do not care to be judged for their deeds, that the theory (and it is only a theory) of evolution would have a particular appeal.
You always hear about "Darwin's theory of evolution" but the "history" books, if such they can even be called anymore don't say much about Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who might well be called Darwin's alter ego.
According to an article on http://evolution.berkeley.edu Darwin and Wallace worked together on a theory they had both come up with independently. Darwin started working on his "natural selection" theory in the 1830s and kept at it for about twenty years, during which time he "corresponded briefly" with Wallace. At a certain point, Wallace decided to ask Darwin's help to publish his own ideas about evolution, so he sent Darwin a copy of his theory in 1858, which, "to Darwin's shock, nearly replicated Darwin's own." This is about where most histories stop. There is, however, a little more information about Dr. Wallace we should all be aware of--and maybe that's why it's usually left out.
According to the informative book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson, Spiritualism played a part in all this. Mr. Thompson notes, on page 203, that: "Spiritualism began in the U.S. and spread to Britain among the Owenites. One of England's most prominent spiritualists was Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace. He was the co-originator with Darwin on the natural selection theory of evolution. Wallace was also involved in socialist theory and activism. His youthful education that started him on this path included reading the works of Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. In other words, there was a socialist influence on the development of the theory of Darwin, and it was tied to spiritualism."
Ann Braude in Radical Spirits, on page 158, confirms Wallace's ties to spiritualism when she writes: "In 1876, Alfred Russel Wallace's defense of Spiritualism from the chair of the Anthropological Section of the British Association made it an issue in the transatlantic scientific community."
Mr. Thompson, in his book, made another interesting observation on page 262 where he said: "Since all Marxists profess a belief in Darwin, it is strange that people do not see through the rhetoric advocating justice for all races embodied in communist organizations' propaganda. How can Marxists advocate equality when they believe in a Darwinian system that says that all men are not equal? It becomes obvious that Marxist leaders are lying about what they stand for in order to enlist the gullible, bleeding-heart activist."
Now I am no expert on all the in's and out's of evolution. Some folks I know have probably forgotten more about it than I will ever know, but just looking at this background would make the whole proposition a little dicey for me. As a Christian I can't buy evolution because it leaves God and our responsibility to Him out. The church my wife and I attend doesn't believe it either. I realize that, among the "scientific" community that makes us anachronisms or Neanderthals or whatever. Well, that's tough. I've been called worse and I expect to be again--just don't call me late for supper!
When you add all this together--the spiritualist and socialist influence, then this becomes the shakiest of propositions. Anything with spiritualist and socialist connections does not bode well for Christians or for the Church and when you look at the fact that some form of Darwin's theory is, basically, the only theory allowed to be discussed in government schools you have to realize that the fact they are not willing to debate or discuss anything else means that this theory is the accepted socialist dogma they plan to teach your kids. That thought, alone would make me, if I still had school age children, want to secede from the public school system. So think about all of this--and more importantly, pray about it.
I can remember, years back now, hearing a preacher in West Virginia talk about evolution. He was, as they say "agin it" and he gave some pretty fair country reasons for his position. One thing he said that I never forgot was that the theory of evolution absolves man from any accountability to God for his actions. If man is nothing more than a highly "evolved" animal then he is accountable to no one for his actions, no matter how good or evil they may be. He is just doing what "comes naturally" since he has no creator. If that's the case, you have to wonder why so many people get mad over what Hitler and Stalin did. If they are responsible to no one and to no God then how can anyone condemn their actions? The Illuminist forebears of the perpetrators of the French Revolution were absolutely shocked at the thought that they might, somehow, be responsible for their actions.The very thought was anathema to them.
So you can see that, among those that do not care to be judged for their deeds, that the theory (and it is only a theory) of evolution would have a particular appeal.
You always hear about "Darwin's theory of evolution" but the "history" books, if such they can even be called anymore don't say much about Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who might well be called Darwin's alter ego.
According to an article on http://evolution.berkeley.edu Darwin and Wallace worked together on a theory they had both come up with independently. Darwin started working on his "natural selection" theory in the 1830s and kept at it for about twenty years, during which time he "corresponded briefly" with Wallace. At a certain point, Wallace decided to ask Darwin's help to publish his own ideas about evolution, so he sent Darwin a copy of his theory in 1858, which, "to Darwin's shock, nearly replicated Darwin's own." This is about where most histories stop. There is, however, a little more information about Dr. Wallace we should all be aware of--and maybe that's why it's usually left out.
According to the informative book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson, Spiritualism played a part in all this. Mr. Thompson notes, on page 203, that: "Spiritualism began in the U.S. and spread to Britain among the Owenites. One of England's most prominent spiritualists was Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace. He was the co-originator with Darwin on the natural selection theory of evolution. Wallace was also involved in socialist theory and activism. His youthful education that started him on this path included reading the works of Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. In other words, there was a socialist influence on the development of the theory of Darwin, and it was tied to spiritualism."
Ann Braude in Radical Spirits, on page 158, confirms Wallace's ties to spiritualism when she writes: "In 1876, Alfred Russel Wallace's defense of Spiritualism from the chair of the Anthropological Section of the British Association made it an issue in the transatlantic scientific community."
Mr. Thompson, in his book, made another interesting observation on page 262 where he said: "Since all Marxists profess a belief in Darwin, it is strange that people do not see through the rhetoric advocating justice for all races embodied in communist organizations' propaganda. How can Marxists advocate equality when they believe in a Darwinian system that says that all men are not equal? It becomes obvious that Marxist leaders are lying about what they stand for in order to enlist the gullible, bleeding-heart activist."
Now I am no expert on all the in's and out's of evolution. Some folks I know have probably forgotten more about it than I will ever know, but just looking at this background would make the whole proposition a little dicey for me. As a Christian I can't buy evolution because it leaves God and our responsibility to Him out. The church my wife and I attend doesn't believe it either. I realize that, among the "scientific" community that makes us anachronisms or Neanderthals or whatever. Well, that's tough. I've been called worse and I expect to be again--just don't call me late for supper!
When you add all this together--the spiritualist and socialist influence, then this becomes the shakiest of propositions. Anything with spiritualist and socialist connections does not bode well for Christians or for the Church and when you look at the fact that some form of Darwin's theory is, basically, the only theory allowed to be discussed in government schools you have to realize that the fact they are not willing to debate or discuss anything else means that this theory is the accepted socialist dogma they plan to teach your kids. That thought, alone would make me, if I still had school age children, want to secede from the public school system. So think about all of this--and more importantly, pray about it.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
"The Fix Is In"
by Al Benson Jr.
Back in January of 2015 I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com entitled "Has the Next President Already Been Chosen?" It went into the fact that the One World Government group, the Bilderbergers, had already chosen Hillary Clinton to be the next president of this country, no matter what the voters said. Their sentiments were/are not important and so the culturally Marxist agenda is for Hillary to be enthroned in the White House--no matter what. That article has gotten more viewership than any other article in the last year and a half so it must have resonated with somebody out there. If it turns out that I am wrong and Trump wins by some fluke no one will be happier than I am and in this one case I won't mind having been wrong, in fact I will be quite satisfied at having been wrong.
That's not to say that I think Mr. Trump is the perfect candidate. I am not really crazy about his vice-presidential choice, though I have to admit it's better than Newt Gingrich who was simply awful, but it's better only by degrees.
Today someone sent me a short message to the extent that Reuters had changed the numbers on a recent poll to indicate a loss of 17 points for Trump, and naturally the "news" ( I laugh whenever I use that term) media has shown a 7 point jump for Hillary. I can't verify the Reuters info at this point, so for me it's just a report, not fact yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be accurate. If Hillary is slated to win, no matter what, then us boobs out here in flyover country have to be psychologically prepared to accept that without too much fuss and what better way to do that than fudging on poll numbers?
At first I felt that I was almost the only one that considered that the upcoming election might be won with "creative voting" techniques. But then, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? How many voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2012 had their votes tallied and showed that Romney never got a single vote in their precincts? And the Republican establishment never once complained? You'd have thought in some of these precincts that there would have been at least one grumpy old man that would have voted for Romney, but, no, it didn't happen--so they tell us. Do I believe it? Do pigs fly? I wonder how many names on the voting rolls you could have found duplicated at local cemeteries. Obama was supposed to win, no matter what--and the Republican establishment went right along with it. They were, indeed, the "loyal"opposition!
Turns out, however, that I am not the only one with a suspicious mind. Today someone sent me an article from SHTFplan.com written by Mac Slavo and entitled No One Can Stop Her...And She Knows It: "This Election Won't Be Fair"
Mr. Slavo noted, quite accurately I think, that: "In a fair election, my best estimate is that Donald Trump would win in a landslide. But this election will not be fair, few of them are." Can't argue with him there, either. Slavo referred to the Democratic Convention and its results as "Hillary's coronation" and he said the entire dog and pony show had been "stage managed to downplay the overwhelming noise from Bernie supporters who are outraged and feel betrayed by Hillary. The entire convention has had a certain air to it, a quality that reveals the desperation for power,..." I guess that's as good a way of saying it as any--"a desperation for power." Hillary was told to stand down in 2008 so Obama could assume the mantle of "transparency" and now she feels it's her turn and she means to have it irregardless of anything else.
So Hillary must be allowed to win at all costs (and there will be costs). Slavo noted that even Americans who don't pay much attention to what goes on in Washington or much of anything else beyond the ball scores, have started to notice what GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA have done to their job situation and how these programs have created "...an entire shift into pseudo-governing structures of globalism that have eaten away at the sovereignty of the United States and devoured the prosperity of its people...And we have all been programmed to take it lying down."
And Slavo then askes: "Can anyone else see that the most rigged and stolen election of all time is shaping up? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary, what makes anyone think the entire country wants anything to do with her. Before you answer that openly, make a strong educated guess about who the next president s going to be...and how many bodies she will have to climb over to get there."
Like I said, I would love to be wrong, but the Establishment has had control of all the presidential candidates since I have been alive, (and probably several before) and so they are not about to allow a maverick to get in there and upset the culturally Marxist agenda at this late point.
You have to know that, with a Hillary presidency, Christians and real patriots are going to face a time of persecution unlike anything this country has seen since the War of Northern Aggression. So get ready. And don't sit there and think that "the rapture" will get you out of this sticky mess, because I don't believe that will happen. Christians have way too much apathy and complacency to answer for to get off that easy.
Back in January of 2015 I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com entitled "Has the Next President Already Been Chosen?" It went into the fact that the One World Government group, the Bilderbergers, had already chosen Hillary Clinton to be the next president of this country, no matter what the voters said. Their sentiments were/are not important and so the culturally Marxist agenda is for Hillary to be enthroned in the White House--no matter what. That article has gotten more viewership than any other article in the last year and a half so it must have resonated with somebody out there. If it turns out that I am wrong and Trump wins by some fluke no one will be happier than I am and in this one case I won't mind having been wrong, in fact I will be quite satisfied at having been wrong.
That's not to say that I think Mr. Trump is the perfect candidate. I am not really crazy about his vice-presidential choice, though I have to admit it's better than Newt Gingrich who was simply awful, but it's better only by degrees.
Today someone sent me a short message to the extent that Reuters had changed the numbers on a recent poll to indicate a loss of 17 points for Trump, and naturally the "news" ( I laugh whenever I use that term) media has shown a 7 point jump for Hillary. I can't verify the Reuters info at this point, so for me it's just a report, not fact yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be accurate. If Hillary is slated to win, no matter what, then us boobs out here in flyover country have to be psychologically prepared to accept that without too much fuss and what better way to do that than fudging on poll numbers?
At first I felt that I was almost the only one that considered that the upcoming election might be won with "creative voting" techniques. But then, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? How many voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2012 had their votes tallied and showed that Romney never got a single vote in their precincts? And the Republican establishment never once complained? You'd have thought in some of these precincts that there would have been at least one grumpy old man that would have voted for Romney, but, no, it didn't happen--so they tell us. Do I believe it? Do pigs fly? I wonder how many names on the voting rolls you could have found duplicated at local cemeteries. Obama was supposed to win, no matter what--and the Republican establishment went right along with it. They were, indeed, the "loyal"opposition!
Turns out, however, that I am not the only one with a suspicious mind. Today someone sent me an article from SHTFplan.com written by Mac Slavo and entitled No One Can Stop Her...And She Knows It: "This Election Won't Be Fair"
Mr. Slavo noted, quite accurately I think, that: "In a fair election, my best estimate is that Donald Trump would win in a landslide. But this election will not be fair, few of them are." Can't argue with him there, either. Slavo referred to the Democratic Convention and its results as "Hillary's coronation" and he said the entire dog and pony show had been "stage managed to downplay the overwhelming noise from Bernie supporters who are outraged and feel betrayed by Hillary. The entire convention has had a certain air to it, a quality that reveals the desperation for power,..." I guess that's as good a way of saying it as any--"a desperation for power." Hillary was told to stand down in 2008 so Obama could assume the mantle of "transparency" and now she feels it's her turn and she means to have it irregardless of anything else.
So Hillary must be allowed to win at all costs (and there will be costs). Slavo noted that even Americans who don't pay much attention to what goes on in Washington or much of anything else beyond the ball scores, have started to notice what GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA have done to their job situation and how these programs have created "...an entire shift into pseudo-governing structures of globalism that have eaten away at the sovereignty of the United States and devoured the prosperity of its people...And we have all been programmed to take it lying down."
And Slavo then askes: "Can anyone else see that the most rigged and stolen election of all time is shaping up? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary, what makes anyone think the entire country wants anything to do with her. Before you answer that openly, make a strong educated guess about who the next president s going to be...and how many bodies she will have to climb over to get there."
Like I said, I would love to be wrong, but the Establishment has had control of all the presidential candidates since I have been alive, (and probably several before) and so they are not about to allow a maverick to get in there and upset the culturally Marxist agenda at this late point.
You have to know that, with a Hillary presidency, Christians and real patriots are going to face a time of persecution unlike anything this country has seen since the War of Northern Aggression. So get ready. And don't sit there and think that "the rapture" will get you out of this sticky mess, because I don't believe that will happen. Christians have way too much apathy and complacency to answer for to get off that easy.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Southern Baptists Cave In To Cultural Marxists--so what else is new?
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.
I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded. And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.
An article in The Dallas Morning News by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.
I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.
I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.
Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.
I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded. And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.
An article in The Dallas Morning News by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.
I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.
I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Let the Boys Into the Girl's Bathrooms in Public Schools--Or Else!!!
by Al Benson Jr.
This if for all those who thought they had seen everything. Guess what folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet! There was an "interesting" article on http://conservativefiringline.com for May 13th (Friday the 13th) about Comrade Obama ordering public schools to let the boys into the girls' bathrooms. I mean, why not? Don't their "civil rights" entitle them to that, and vice-versa? All you "civil rights" advocates have helped to bring us here. Is this what you really wanted? Maybe it is, who knows?
The Conservative Firing Line article, written by Joe Newby, states that: "On Thursday, news broke that the Obama regime is ordering schools nationwide to let students use whichever bathroom that corresponds to whatever gender they think they might be at that moment in time, essentially saying that schools must let boys use the girls restroom." Our all-inclusive Attorney General has said: "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex." And the article notes that keeping boys out of the girls restrooms just might lead to schools losing their federal funding.
Governor Abbott of Texas says that Obama is not a dictator and he says he will fight the edict. I hope he is able to, but after all the talking is done, let's wait and see what happens and check that out against what has been said. The governor of North Carolina is fighting this same battle and I wish him well, too. However, again, in spite of all the rhetoric, lets take a brief look at a couple things.
No matter how you want to slice the bread or cut the mustard, public schools ARE Government Schools. You can't really get away from that. You may have parent teacher groups that give the illusion of parental involvement and you may even elect your local school board members, yet with all this cleverly-packaged window dressing, in the final analysis these are still government schools. Why else do you have a federal Department of Education? Folks, begin to get it through your heads--these schools do not belong to you or to the local community--they belong to the government, and as long as the government is paying for them, even though they soak you for part of the price via your property taxes, they will get to decide what these schools do or don't do and how they do or don't do it. Simple as that! Local control of public schools is a myth--always has been and always will be, except now with some of what's going on the myth is getting a little more difficult to peddle, but they're still working at it and they are still fooling too many people.
If some conservative school district here in the South decides they don't want to play this game the will lose their federal funding. The only way to fight this is for local (and I use that word carefully) school districts all across the country, hundreds of them, to flat out refuse to comply and for them to start withholding whatever money they have been sending to Washington to help pay for local kids "education." And in all reality, you know that isn't going to happen because when push comes to shove, you will find that many of those you have elected to school boards nationwide have the same worldview as the One World Government people in Washington. They just didn't bother to tell you that when they ran for office. If you want a perfect example of how this works take a look back at the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s when all the rotten textbooks were being implemented in public schools there. How well did that school board reflect the real concerns of parents? One member of that board, Alice Moore, did. She had a genuine concern about what they were feeding the kids that passed for "education" and she did her best to fight against it. She was a minority of one! But you have to give her credit. She did try.
To take this a step further, once Obama's multi-sexual worldview on bathrooms in public schools is fully implemented, how many Christians will remove their children from those schools in protest over this? The governors of Texas and North Carolina have vowed to fight Obama on this and I do wish them well. They will be in need of our prayers because the feds will try to slice them up and have them for supper. Again, how many Christians will be willing to remove their kids from public schools over this? Admittedly, some can't given their family situations. But what about those who can if they are willing to make a little sacrifice for their kids' well being, both physically and emotionally? How many will make that move and do it? Let's just say that it'd be nice to have a dollar for everyone that just won't be bothered.
And if Obama manages to pull this off, might he even dare to take it a step further? Might there possibly be a federal thrust in the direction of Christian churches? Is it just possible that churches that are not willing to go along with multi-sex bathrooms in their buildings might be denied their 501c3 tax exemptions unless they are willing to knuckle under and comply? If the feds can withhold federal funding for public schools then why can't they play the same game with churches and start denying them their 501c3 tax breaks if they will not legitimize the transgender lifestyle? You think that sounds far out? Don't kid yourself. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
The present federal agenda calls for the dismantling of any residual Christian morality left in this country, particularly in the South. This is what Obama's "fundamental transformation" was and is really all about. Now it's up to us, our churches, and our States to decide how we are going to respond to all this.
This if for all those who thought they had seen everything. Guess what folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet! There was an "interesting" article on http://conservativefiringline.com for May 13th (Friday the 13th) about Comrade Obama ordering public schools to let the boys into the girls' bathrooms. I mean, why not? Don't their "civil rights" entitle them to that, and vice-versa? All you "civil rights" advocates have helped to bring us here. Is this what you really wanted? Maybe it is, who knows?
The Conservative Firing Line article, written by Joe Newby, states that: "On Thursday, news broke that the Obama regime is ordering schools nationwide to let students use whichever bathroom that corresponds to whatever gender they think they might be at that moment in time, essentially saying that schools must let boys use the girls restroom." Our all-inclusive Attorney General has said: "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex." And the article notes that keeping boys out of the girls restrooms just might lead to schools losing their federal funding.
Governor Abbott of Texas says that Obama is not a dictator and he says he will fight the edict. I hope he is able to, but after all the talking is done, let's wait and see what happens and check that out against what has been said. The governor of North Carolina is fighting this same battle and I wish him well, too. However, again, in spite of all the rhetoric, lets take a brief look at a couple things.
No matter how you want to slice the bread or cut the mustard, public schools ARE Government Schools. You can't really get away from that. You may have parent teacher groups that give the illusion of parental involvement and you may even elect your local school board members, yet with all this cleverly-packaged window dressing, in the final analysis these are still government schools. Why else do you have a federal Department of Education? Folks, begin to get it through your heads--these schools do not belong to you or to the local community--they belong to the government, and as long as the government is paying for them, even though they soak you for part of the price via your property taxes, they will get to decide what these schools do or don't do and how they do or don't do it. Simple as that! Local control of public schools is a myth--always has been and always will be, except now with some of what's going on the myth is getting a little more difficult to peddle, but they're still working at it and they are still fooling too many people.
If some conservative school district here in the South decides they don't want to play this game the will lose their federal funding. The only way to fight this is for local (and I use that word carefully) school districts all across the country, hundreds of them, to flat out refuse to comply and for them to start withholding whatever money they have been sending to Washington to help pay for local kids "education." And in all reality, you know that isn't going to happen because when push comes to shove, you will find that many of those you have elected to school boards nationwide have the same worldview as the One World Government people in Washington. They just didn't bother to tell you that when they ran for office. If you want a perfect example of how this works take a look back at the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s when all the rotten textbooks were being implemented in public schools there. How well did that school board reflect the real concerns of parents? One member of that board, Alice Moore, did. She had a genuine concern about what they were feeding the kids that passed for "education" and she did her best to fight against it. She was a minority of one! But you have to give her credit. She did try.
To take this a step further, once Obama's multi-sexual worldview on bathrooms in public schools is fully implemented, how many Christians will remove their children from those schools in protest over this? The governors of Texas and North Carolina have vowed to fight Obama on this and I do wish them well. They will be in need of our prayers because the feds will try to slice them up and have them for supper. Again, how many Christians will be willing to remove their kids from public schools over this? Admittedly, some can't given their family situations. But what about those who can if they are willing to make a little sacrifice for their kids' well being, both physically and emotionally? How many will make that move and do it? Let's just say that it'd be nice to have a dollar for everyone that just won't be bothered.
And if Obama manages to pull this off, might he even dare to take it a step further? Might there possibly be a federal thrust in the direction of Christian churches? Is it just possible that churches that are not willing to go along with multi-sex bathrooms in their buildings might be denied their 501c3 tax exemptions unless they are willing to knuckle under and comply? If the feds can withhold federal funding for public schools then why can't they play the same game with churches and start denying them their 501c3 tax breaks if they will not legitimize the transgender lifestyle? You think that sounds far out? Don't kid yourself. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
The present federal agenda calls for the dismantling of any residual Christian morality left in this country, particularly in the South. This is what Obama's "fundamental transformation" was and is really all about. Now it's up to us, our churches, and our States to decide how we are going to respond to all this.
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Houston Voters Didn't Want Guys In the Gal's Bathroom
by Al Benson Jr.
The article on www.bbc.com stated: "Houston's mayoral election has turned into a national battleground for LGBT rights after a non-discrimination ordinance was added to the ballot. The city is the fourth largest city in the US and the biggest not to have such an ordinance." Does that mean that most other cities in this country of comparable size to Houston already sport such an ordinance? That's something most people probably have not even thought about or been aware of.
Thankfully, in Houston, conservative Christian pastors and other conservatives took a stand against this attempted perversion in their city and it was defeated by something like 60-40% The original ordinance was passed last year. I assume either the mayor, who is an open lesbian, either did it by decree, the same way our current resident in the White (Red) House tries to do these things, or the city council passed it as an ordinance. If the city council passed it the good citizens of Houston might want to think about electing a new city council in the next election. However it was done, a court said it either had to be placed on a ballot or repealed. At least that gave voters a fighting chance.
The mayor who is strongly in favor of this is the same mayor who sought last year to censor the sermons of several Houston pastors to make sure they hadn't said anything about sexual perversion she didn't like. Legally she wasn't able to do that--yet--but she sure gave it the old college try.
That might be a subtle warning to Christians as to what we can expect not too far down the line. The collectivist administration in Washington supports this sort of thing and goes out of their way to promote it. Their agenda is to, as completely as possible, dismantle as much of our Christian culture as we let them get away with as they work to move this country down the road toward a One World socialist regime.
Up to now, most Christians haven't bothered to get involved too much--lots easier for us if we just sit back and "let the Lord do it all so I don't have to do anything"--and that's one major problem today with the Church. We have become fat, happy and complacent and it's just too much of an effort for us to do much of anything anymore--especially if it might "offend" anyone or be perceived as "negative." We have been conditioned to avoid these like the plague. And it's so much easier just to sit and do nothing. It doesn't begin to occur to us that we have allowed ourselves to be placed in bondage to Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism).
Seeing that this mayor in Houston is such an open lesbian, I wonder where the Christians were when she ran for office. Had they been awake she never should have gotten where she is.
Naturally the supporters of this "boys in the girls' bathroom" bill were disappointed that it lost. Some of them spent big bucks pushing it. You have to wonder why. But don't worry. They will be back again somewhere down the line. One thing you learn about those people after you've been around awhile is that they never quit--and I mean never! The Christians and other good folks in Houston won this one, but they can't just go home and sit on their laurels. They've won one battle, not the war. They will have to be "eternally vigilant" because this will come up again and if they fail to watch for it they will get caught the next time.
The article on www.bbc.com stated: "Houston's mayoral election has turned into a national battleground for LGBT rights after a non-discrimination ordinance was added to the ballot. The city is the fourth largest city in the US and the biggest not to have such an ordinance." Does that mean that most other cities in this country of comparable size to Houston already sport such an ordinance? That's something most people probably have not even thought about or been aware of.
Thankfully, in Houston, conservative Christian pastors and other conservatives took a stand against this attempted perversion in their city and it was defeated by something like 60-40% The original ordinance was passed last year. I assume either the mayor, who is an open lesbian, either did it by decree, the same way our current resident in the White (Red) House tries to do these things, or the city council passed it as an ordinance. If the city council passed it the good citizens of Houston might want to think about electing a new city council in the next election. However it was done, a court said it either had to be placed on a ballot or repealed. At least that gave voters a fighting chance.
The mayor who is strongly in favor of this is the same mayor who sought last year to censor the sermons of several Houston pastors to make sure they hadn't said anything about sexual perversion she didn't like. Legally she wasn't able to do that--yet--but she sure gave it the old college try.
That might be a subtle warning to Christians as to what we can expect not too far down the line. The collectivist administration in Washington supports this sort of thing and goes out of their way to promote it. Their agenda is to, as completely as possible, dismantle as much of our Christian culture as we let them get away with as they work to move this country down the road toward a One World socialist regime.
Up to now, most Christians haven't bothered to get involved too much--lots easier for us if we just sit back and "let the Lord do it all so I don't have to do anything"--and that's one major problem today with the Church. We have become fat, happy and complacent and it's just too much of an effort for us to do much of anything anymore--especially if it might "offend" anyone or be perceived as "negative." We have been conditioned to avoid these like the plague. And it's so much easier just to sit and do nothing. It doesn't begin to occur to us that we have allowed ourselves to be placed in bondage to Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism).
Seeing that this mayor in Houston is such an open lesbian, I wonder where the Christians were when she ran for office. Had they been awake she never should have gotten where she is.
Naturally the supporters of this "boys in the girls' bathroom" bill were disappointed that it lost. Some of them spent big bucks pushing it. You have to wonder why. But don't worry. They will be back again somewhere down the line. One thing you learn about those people after you've been around awhile is that they never quit--and I mean never! The Christians and other good folks in Houston won this one, but they can't just go home and sit on their laurels. They've won one battle, not the war. They will have to be "eternally vigilant" because this will come up again and if they fail to watch for it they will get caught the next time.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Planned Parenthood and Federal Threats
by Al Benson Jr.
It's not unusual to see the federal government doing what it does best, threatening the states if they refuse to comply with federal edicts. This is, after all, what the centralizers and collectivists in Washington, the District of Corruption, live for. It makes their day if they can find some way, somehow, to stomp on states rights today.
Thus, when two states, Louisiana and Alabama, have sought to defund Planned Parenthood, this is something the feds can't afford to let pass. Notice these two states are both in the South.
In an article on www.reuters.com for August 12th it was stated that: The U.S. government has warned states moving to defund women's health group Planned Parenthood that they may be in conflict with federal law, officials said Wednesday." The article reiterated this same line a couple paragraphs later with commentary from the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS). Reuters noted that "The agency warned those two states that their plans to terminate Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services, the spokesman said in a statement." In other words, you may be in violation of federal statutes that allow the murder of unborn babies if you restrict the "rights" of mothers to use this group to help them murder their unborn children.
Gary North, in an article on lewrockwell.com for August 19th noted that the operative word in use here is may. You may be in violation of some federal statute, but if you may, there is also a 50-50 chance that you may not. So this is a (at this point) thinly veiled threat by the Washington bureaucrats to the states that they better not try this. After all when it comes to murdering babies the federal government should have the final say and heaven help those states that really don't want to go along.
Now I hate to sound like a rabble-rouser, but I would dearly love to see another batch of states decide that they had had enough of Planned Parenthood's policy of murdering babies and marketing the baby parts. Will the feds decide to prosecute 15 or 16 states if they decide to adopt such a policy?
I can just hear some pompous federal bureaucrat dumping all over various states because they are not willing to pay for the murder and resale of unborn children (and they ARE children, even if unborn). However, the "law" that allows for the murder of unborn children is not nearly as old as the one that says Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13). And the two laws obviously have two different and opposite sources. And now the federal government may prosecute states that choose to follow the Commandment rather than the federal edict.
Some of those in the insane race for president have stated that would look into what Planned Parenthood has been doing if elected. Which means, in plain English, that they want the pro-life vote so they will give the appearance of being concerned until the election is over. I'm sorry, but at this point, I don't trust any of them.
The Reuters article noted also that: "Anti-abortion activists said that a sixth video, released on Wednesday, shows Planned Parenthood doctors sell(ing) aborted fetal tissue to researchers without the mother's permission." And of course Planned Parenthood still maintains it has done nothing wrong. The blood of those unborn children, crying out from their graves, gives the lie to that absurdity and the people at Planned Parenthood who willingly participate in these murders will answer to the Lord for these lives.
In the meantime, other states that would like to defund Planned Parenthood should go ahead and take that action and make that statement. For if there is a chance that they may be in violation of federal statutes, there is also the chance that they may not. And either way, it is the right thing to do.
It's not unusual to see the federal government doing what it does best, threatening the states if they refuse to comply with federal edicts. This is, after all, what the centralizers and collectivists in Washington, the District of Corruption, live for. It makes their day if they can find some way, somehow, to stomp on states rights today.
Thus, when two states, Louisiana and Alabama, have sought to defund Planned Parenthood, this is something the feds can't afford to let pass. Notice these two states are both in the South.
In an article on www.reuters.com for August 12th it was stated that: The U.S. government has warned states moving to defund women's health group Planned Parenthood that they may be in conflict with federal law, officials said Wednesday." The article reiterated this same line a couple paragraphs later with commentary from the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS). Reuters noted that "The agency warned those two states that their plans to terminate Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services, the spokesman said in a statement." In other words, you may be in violation of federal statutes that allow the murder of unborn babies if you restrict the "rights" of mothers to use this group to help them murder their unborn children.
Gary North, in an article on lewrockwell.com for August 19th noted that the operative word in use here is may. You may be in violation of some federal statute, but if you may, there is also a 50-50 chance that you may not. So this is a (at this point) thinly veiled threat by the Washington bureaucrats to the states that they better not try this. After all when it comes to murdering babies the federal government should have the final say and heaven help those states that really don't want to go along.
Now I hate to sound like a rabble-rouser, but I would dearly love to see another batch of states decide that they had had enough of Planned Parenthood's policy of murdering babies and marketing the baby parts. Will the feds decide to prosecute 15 or 16 states if they decide to adopt such a policy?
I can just hear some pompous federal bureaucrat dumping all over various states because they are not willing to pay for the murder and resale of unborn children (and they ARE children, even if unborn). However, the "law" that allows for the murder of unborn children is not nearly as old as the one that says Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13). And the two laws obviously have two different and opposite sources. And now the federal government may prosecute states that choose to follow the Commandment rather than the federal edict.
Some of those in the insane race for president have stated that would look into what Planned Parenthood has been doing if elected. Which means, in plain English, that they want the pro-life vote so they will give the appearance of being concerned until the election is over. I'm sorry, but at this point, I don't trust any of them.
The Reuters article noted also that: "Anti-abortion activists said that a sixth video, released on Wednesday, shows Planned Parenthood doctors sell(ing) aborted fetal tissue to researchers without the mother's permission." And of course Planned Parenthood still maintains it has done nothing wrong. The blood of those unborn children, crying out from their graves, gives the lie to that absurdity and the people at Planned Parenthood who willingly participate in these murders will answer to the Lord for these lives.
In the meantime, other states that would like to defund Planned Parenthood should go ahead and take that action and make that statement. For if there is a chance that they may be in violation of federal statutes, there is also the chance that they may not. And either way, it is the right thing to do.
Friday, April 10, 2015
"Freedom" in the U.S.? Don't Make Me Laugh!
by Al Benson Jr.
After the 9/11 debacle, (whoever was responsible for that) President Bush got on tv and said that the terrorists that did it hated us because of our freedoms. At that point my first thought was "what hogwash." And as the Bush administration went along after 9/11 they made more than sure that American citizens would never again be burdened with too much freedom and to do that they gave us the Patriot Act. It has gone downhill from there.
By the time our current commissar came along to inhabit the White (Red) House he had promised us that he would fundamentally "transform" the United States and would have the most "transparent" administration in history. This line didn't even deserve to be rated as hogwash--it was even below hogwash. I probably couldn't come up with a term for it that wouldn't get me shut down so I will leave it to your imaginations. Suffice it to say that I, long ago, had given up believing the political fertilizer slingers that assured us we were living in a "free country." I knew they were lying and so did they--but they did it with such a straight face that most folks, less suspicious than me, bought into it. The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has been transformed into the "land of the freeloader and the home of the brain-dead." And it hasn't been accidental. It's part of the agenda.
I've been waiting for the Christian Church to wake up and realize what has happened. Mostly, it ain't happening. Most Christians I've come across don't know and they don't want to know. After all, if you can't trust your government then who can you trust? That's their rationale. Anyone who tries to tell them, for their own good, what's going on is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" or a "right wing nut." They haven't got time to be bothered trying to defend their liberties so they can pass them along to their children and grandchildren. That's not important. Half of them, or more, feel that they will be "raptured" out of here before it gets real sticky and so they don't have to be bothered doing anything about our problems. The rest feel so strongly that the Lord is in control (which He is) that they don't have to be bothered doing anything to combat evil in the world--the Lord will take care of all that. They are just along for the spiritual ride. The Church has been lulled to sleep in the last 150 years, due to apostasy and planned neutralization. It once stood for something--now it falls for everything.
Just today I read an article by John Whitehead, from his web site entitled Kick Open the Doorway to Liberty: What Are We Waiting For? It's in the commentary section of the Rutherford Institute web site.
Mr. Whitehead seems to feel the same frustration that I do about where the country is going and about the almost total lack of concern of most people.
Mr. Whitehead noted that: "Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head. Free speech, religious expression, privacy, due process, bodily integrity, the sanctity of human life, the sovereignty of the family...the right to self defense, protection against police abuses...private property, human rights--the very ideals that once made this nation great--have become casualties of a politically correct, misguided, materialistic, amoral, militaristic culture." Again, this is NOT by accident. It's not just "happening." And he also says: "Why should we Americans have to put up with the government listening in on our phone calls, spying on our emails, subjecting us to roadside strip searches, and generally holding our freedoms hostage in exchange for some phantom promises of security?" Good question. But let's be realistic here. The promises of "security" (prisons are secure, too) are nothing more than a way to get Americans to surrender their God-given liberties without a fight. It's a lot less bloody if the government can convince people that it is "protecting" them instead of taking over their lives to fulfill the socialist agenda of the One World Government crowd in Washington and New York.
And if you think this isn't really happening, that it's not really that bad, take a look at a National Review article, (www.nationalreview.com) by Alec Torres for January 1, 2014. Mr. Torres wrote: "When President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. was ranked the sixth freest economy. It is the only country in the world to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years. Since 2006, the U.S. has 'suffered a dramatic decline of almost six points, with particularly large losses in property rights, freedom from corruption, and control of government spending,' according to the report. 'Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness."
Now I don't always agree with all the National Review says, but in this case, Mr. Torres has nailed it pretty accurately. Your freedom and liberty and economic status had seriously deteriorated since the advent of the current Marxist regime with its promises of "transparency."
Although there are lots of folks who don't like what they see happening and are concerned by what has more and more become a rogue administration, their main response has been to gripe a little and that's it. Christians, in the main, don't have anymore of a clue than anyone else, and sad to say, lots of them don't want one. For them to realize what's going on would mean that they would have to, as Christians, take some responsibility to take a stand against the evil they see around them--and that's just too much trouble nowadays. Lots easier to tune in the upcoming "Reality" show and forget about the rest. Just "let George (or Barack) take care of it--which is just what they've done and now they don't like the results.
Mr. Whitehead, at the conclusion of his article asks: "Where are the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and the insistently courageous city councils now, when they are crucially needed to bring back the Bill of Rights that protect every American against government tyranny worse than King George III's? Where are the citizens demanding that these doorways to liberty be opened? What are we waiting for?"
Well, Mr. Whitehead, what they are waiting for is the "rapture" to take them out of all this so they won't have to do any of the things you mention here, or else they are waiting for the Lord to do it all so they don't have to get involved and get their hands dirty. Either way, what we've mostly got here, not totally, but mostly, is a do nothing church that just can't be bothered and that doesn't want to believe it's as bad as some have told them. This country will probably be judged for their attitude, and that's not a pleasant thought.
After the 9/11 debacle, (whoever was responsible for that) President Bush got on tv and said that the terrorists that did it hated us because of our freedoms. At that point my first thought was "what hogwash." And as the Bush administration went along after 9/11 they made more than sure that American citizens would never again be burdened with too much freedom and to do that they gave us the Patriot Act. It has gone downhill from there.
By the time our current commissar came along to inhabit the White (Red) House he had promised us that he would fundamentally "transform" the United States and would have the most "transparent" administration in history. This line didn't even deserve to be rated as hogwash--it was even below hogwash. I probably couldn't come up with a term for it that wouldn't get me shut down so I will leave it to your imaginations. Suffice it to say that I, long ago, had given up believing the political fertilizer slingers that assured us we were living in a "free country." I knew they were lying and so did they--but they did it with such a straight face that most folks, less suspicious than me, bought into it. The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has been transformed into the "land of the freeloader and the home of the brain-dead." And it hasn't been accidental. It's part of the agenda.
I've been waiting for the Christian Church to wake up and realize what has happened. Mostly, it ain't happening. Most Christians I've come across don't know and they don't want to know. After all, if you can't trust your government then who can you trust? That's their rationale. Anyone who tries to tell them, for their own good, what's going on is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" or a "right wing nut." They haven't got time to be bothered trying to defend their liberties so they can pass them along to their children and grandchildren. That's not important. Half of them, or more, feel that they will be "raptured" out of here before it gets real sticky and so they don't have to be bothered doing anything about our problems. The rest feel so strongly that the Lord is in control (which He is) that they don't have to be bothered doing anything to combat evil in the world--the Lord will take care of all that. They are just along for the spiritual ride. The Church has been lulled to sleep in the last 150 years, due to apostasy and planned neutralization. It once stood for something--now it falls for everything.
Just today I read an article by John Whitehead, from his web site entitled Kick Open the Doorway to Liberty: What Are We Waiting For? It's in the commentary section of the Rutherford Institute web site.
Mr. Whitehead seems to feel the same frustration that I do about where the country is going and about the almost total lack of concern of most people.
Mr. Whitehead noted that: "Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head. Free speech, religious expression, privacy, due process, bodily integrity, the sanctity of human life, the sovereignty of the family...the right to self defense, protection against police abuses...private property, human rights--the very ideals that once made this nation great--have become casualties of a politically correct, misguided, materialistic, amoral, militaristic culture." Again, this is NOT by accident. It's not just "happening." And he also says: "Why should we Americans have to put up with the government listening in on our phone calls, spying on our emails, subjecting us to roadside strip searches, and generally holding our freedoms hostage in exchange for some phantom promises of security?" Good question. But let's be realistic here. The promises of "security" (prisons are secure, too) are nothing more than a way to get Americans to surrender their God-given liberties without a fight. It's a lot less bloody if the government can convince people that it is "protecting" them instead of taking over their lives to fulfill the socialist agenda of the One World Government crowd in Washington and New York.
And if you think this isn't really happening, that it's not really that bad, take a look at a National Review article, (www.nationalreview.com) by Alec Torres for January 1, 2014. Mr. Torres wrote: "When President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. was ranked the sixth freest economy. It is the only country in the world to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years. Since 2006, the U.S. has 'suffered a dramatic decline of almost six points, with particularly large losses in property rights, freedom from corruption, and control of government spending,' according to the report. 'Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness."
Now I don't always agree with all the National Review says, but in this case, Mr. Torres has nailed it pretty accurately. Your freedom and liberty and economic status had seriously deteriorated since the advent of the current Marxist regime with its promises of "transparency."
Although there are lots of folks who don't like what they see happening and are concerned by what has more and more become a rogue administration, their main response has been to gripe a little and that's it. Christians, in the main, don't have anymore of a clue than anyone else, and sad to say, lots of them don't want one. For them to realize what's going on would mean that they would have to, as Christians, take some responsibility to take a stand against the evil they see around them--and that's just too much trouble nowadays. Lots easier to tune in the upcoming "Reality" show and forget about the rest. Just "let George (or Barack) take care of it--which is just what they've done and now they don't like the results.
Mr. Whitehead, at the conclusion of his article asks: "Where are the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and the insistently courageous city councils now, when they are crucially needed to bring back the Bill of Rights that protect every American against government tyranny worse than King George III's? Where are the citizens demanding that these doorways to liberty be opened? What are we waiting for?"
Well, Mr. Whitehead, what they are waiting for is the "rapture" to take them out of all this so they won't have to do any of the things you mention here, or else they are waiting for the Lord to do it all so they don't have to get involved and get their hands dirty. Either way, what we've mostly got here, not totally, but mostly, is a do nothing church that just can't be bothered and that doesn't want to believe it's as bad as some have told them. This country will probably be judged for their attitude, and that's not a pleasant thought.
Saturday, April 04, 2015
Where Is the Church Headed Now—And should we resist the trip?
By Al
Benson Jr.
Earlier
this week someone sent me an article from Relevant Magazine entitled: The Presbyterian Church Votes to Recognize
Same-Sex Marriage. The headline is slightly misleading because all
Presbyterians have not voted to endorse or accept same-sex (sodomite) marriage.
No doubt the “progressive Presbyterians” have accepted it, but us Neanderthals
in many Presbyterian churches have not, and will not, in accordance with God’s
Word, accept this.
Actually
the article is referring to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PCUSA as most
of us call it. This denomination has
been drifting leftward by degrees for decades now and so such a move was not
totally unexpected. According to the Relevant article: “While the office of the
General Assembly is still awaiting official tallies, it appears that a majority
of the 171 presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have approved a
change to the current description of marriage in the PC (USA)’s Constitution.”
Unfortunately,
the liberal Presbyterians are not the only ones in the church that are pushing
this perversion. In another article on www.relevantmagazine.com the headline reads: Rob Bell: The Church Is ‘Moments Away’ From Accepting Gay Marriage. The
article went on to say: “He (Bell) went on to say the church was risking
irrelevance by holding off on an embrace of gay marriage. ‘I think the culture
is already there,’ he said. ‘And the church will continue to be even more
irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best
defense…’.” Look at his last statement. Do you realize what he’s saying here?
He’s calling into doubt what the New Testament has to say about marriage because
it doesn’t seem “relevant” to him. Where does that put him in regard to the
authority of Scripture? If he can dismiss the truth of Scripture that easily
because it doesn’t conform to what the world believes, I would suggest that, in
the long run, maybe he is irrelevant.
In
another article on www.standupfortruth.com Rob Bell is noted as part of the Emergent
Church movement, which the article describes this way: “The Emergent Church
movement is a progressive Christian movement that attempts to reduce or
eliminate Christian doctrine in favor of experience and feelings. Most do not
believe man can know what is absolute truth, and believe God must be
experienced outside of traditional biblical doctrines.” This is just another
version of “if it feels good do it.” No doctrine, no absolute truth, just
experience and feeling. These people are the Transcendentalists of the 21st
century. Emerson and Thoreau would have loved them! The article notes some of
the leaders of this movement—among whom are Rob Bell and Rick Warren (“whom
many of these leaders point to as their inspiration for the Emergent
Movement.”) Does this help you to understand why Warren’s name was linked with
Obama’s during the 2008 presidential farce?
It would
seem that the arrogance and egotism of some of these apostates (and that’s what
they are) knows no ends. In a brief article on www.beginningandend.com the following was noted: “In a stunning sign
of the growing apostasy—the rise of the false church in Christianity that no
longer treats the Bible as its final authority, Reverend Oliver White of Grace
Community United Church, came on the
radio show of Fox News Host Sean Hannity to proclaim that Jesus Christ was
‘wrong’ on the issue of homosexuality
and gay marriage. White, speaking for Jesus Christ, said, with respect to the
issue of gay marriage no longer being a sin: ‘If Jesus were alive today, I
think he would be more inclined to say: you
know, I didn’t know it all’…” There’s a photo of Rev. White at the top of
this article holding what appears to be a big Bible—but then, with Rev. White’s
attitude toward Jesus, maybe it’s really an enlarged version of The Humanist Manifesto. Here’s a man who
thinks he knows more than Jesus Christ. Another 21st century
Transcendentalist! Who says Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, and all the other
unholy “isms” died in the 19th century? Some of them may have taken
a little breather, but they are back, alive and well today and their
practitioners are back, fooling another generation of “useful idiots” who have
never read their church history anymore than they have their American history
and so they continue to make grandiose pronouncement while not knowing upside
down from inside out.
You
have to wonder why more preachers don’t stand up and expose this stuff. Too
many have been bemused into a “all I’m called to do is to preach the gospel and
I don’t want to get involved in politics” stance. This absolves them, so they
think, from having to do anything about the abysmal spiritual condition of the
church in our day. If they don’t know anything about any of it then they can’t
deal with it, and so they continue on with a truncated version of John 3:16 and
never, and I mean never, get beyond that. Nothing against John 3:16—it’s
foundational, but if you never get past
the foundation then the house isn’t going to get built and you’ll live
in the cellar forever. That’s one problem I have with the Scofield Bible Notes.
They teach Christians to stay in the cellar because that’s all they will ever
be.
Another
problem for the cellar dwellers is the501c3 syndrome, which says that if any
church, anywhere, makes even the remotest political statement about anything,
then they will lose their tax exemption. Churches today are hide-bound by this
and scared stiff to say anything that might “offend” the ruling elite and cost
them their exemption. An article on www.hushmoney.org noted that “Churches were only
added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Senator Lyndon B.
Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of
the church. As part of his political agenda,
Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant
influence the church had always had on shaping ‘public policy’…For a 501c3
church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything the
government declares ‘legal’ even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion,
homosexuality, etc.) that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The
501c3 has had a ‘chilling effect’ upon the free speech rights of the church.”
The article noted that LBJ was a “shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to
well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.”
Now
the IRS routinely warns churches during election years not to deal with where
candidates stand on any issues and so the threat is always there.
So
this seems to be where the church is headed—intimidated by the IRS, scared
stiff of losing their tax exemptions, inundated with false preachers who tell
us that sodomy and other related sins are okay and that we wont be “relevant”
unless we dump biblical teaching and embrace all the latest perversions. Thank
the Lord there are some churches that don’t buy into this bovine fertilizer,
but there are too many that do. The pastors that promote this rank apostasy are
leading their congregations astray and there doesn’t seem, in many cases, to be
enough spiritual discernment among the congregants to grasp this.
At the
risk of offending the current seekers of “relevance” I would go back and
advocate what the Scripture says in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-18 to
Christians in our day. If you are in a church where this kind of thing is
permitted or encouraged then separate yourself from that church and find one
that believes in and trusts the Holy Scriptures. Staying in apostate
congregations will do nothing more than make you “two-fold more the child of hell”
than you were before. I can understand wanting to help and love sinners, but
accepting their perversions as normal does not help them, in fact it may well
do them eternal harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)