There is nothing "conservative" about GOProud. It is a progressive group that exists solely to divide, confuse, conquer, and thereby neutralize the conservative movement. And it is working...
Participation of homosexuals, financial mismanagement cited
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily; 12/27/10
Two of the nation’s premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.
“We’ve been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization’s financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.
“CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud,” CWA President Penny Nance told WND.
FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.
The American Conservative Union, longtime organizers of CPAC, disclosed just before Christmas that GOProud would be considered a “participating organization,” the second highest level of participation. As a “participating organization,” GOProud has a voice in planning the conference.
The decision followed two hotly contested CPAC board votes over GOProud. The first vote ended in a tie. The outcome of the second vote has not been officially disclosed, but a source at ACU leaked the decision favoring GOProud to the media.
ACU is also currently struggling through an embezzlement scandal, in which the ex-wife of ACU Chairman David Keene is suspected of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization. Diana Carr, ACU’s former bookkeeper, was fired in January 2010.
Nobody from ACU was available to comment, as the organization’s offices are closed for the holiday season.
“Excellent. It is gratifying to see FRC and CWA respond appropriately to CPAC’s moral sellout of allowing GOProud as a sponsor,” said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the nation’s best-known organization dedicated exclusively to opposing the homosexual political agenda.
“By bringing in GOProud, CPAC was effectively saying moral opposition to homosexuality is no longer welcome in the conservative movement,” said LaBarbera. “Would CPAC bring in an organization specifically devoted to promoting abortion and pretend it’s conservative?” LaBarbera has formerly participated in CPAC, but said he may protest the conference this year.
“Shame on CPAC for defending the absurd proposition that one can be ‘conservative’ while embracing moral surrender – in this case the idea espoused by GOProud of the government granting ‘rights’ and benefits based on sinful sexual conduct long regarded as anathema to biblical and Judeo-Christian values,” LaBarbera added.
“[ACU has] gone libertarian, that’s their focus,” said Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm. “Libertarianism is right on the economy, often wrong on national defense, and doesn’t care about social conservatism. Libertarians only respect one leg of the Reagan revolution, and you can’t stand for long on one leg.”
“[GOProud is] why Liberty Counsel and Liberty University dropped out of CPAC,” Staver told WND. “Last year Liberty University was a CPAC sponsor, and we worked on a committee selecting speakers. We were not informed that GOProud was a consponsor. They were brought in at the eleventh hour, and we learned about it in a homosexual blog.”
Full Article:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/cpacs-goproud-controversy-continues-frc-cwa-pull-out.html
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Real Reason Kids are Fat
Posted By Suzanne Venker
December 26, 2010 @ 10:00pm
The Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that was pushed through Congress just last week is a terrific example of all that is wrong with the Left. The proposed legislation includes $4.5 billion over 10 years for programs that are designed to…teach children how to eat.
Yup, the United States government has officially become Mom and Dad — which works out well for moms like Monet Parham, who’s suing McDonald’s for offering Happy Meals on their menu.
I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience. But as other busy working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.
This is a classic case of inept parenting. Lucky for her, Ms. Parham has a friend in another inept parent: Michelle Obama.
She was also once exasperated with trying to feed her kids. During her Let’s Move campaign last year, she said this:
Before coming to the White House, the president and I lived like most families: two working parents — too busy, not enough time, and I found myself unable to cook a good meal for my kids. Going to fast food more than I’d like, ordering pizza, and I started to see the effects on my family, particularly my kids.
Today, Mrs. Obama has a cook to oversee her children’s eating habits and has conveniently forgotten the significance of what she learned. Rather than suggest parents change their lifestyle to accommodate the needs of children, she passes legislation designed to take the onus off parents. According to Mrs. Obama,
We can’t just leave [the obesity dilemma] up to the parents.
Yet last year the First Lady also said this about childhood obesity:
This isn’t like a disease where we’re still waiting for a cure to be discovered – we know the cure for this. It doesn’t take some stroke of genius or feat of technology.
No, it doesn’t — which is why the Obama administration has just thrown billions of your tax dollars down the toilet. Today’s parents have all the information they could possibly need about nutrition. Spending more money trying to educate them — by requiring front-of-package labeling that discloses a product’s nutritional value, for example — is futile. As Obama herself points out, it doesn’t take “a stroke of genius” to discern the good stuff from the bad stuff.
The truth about childhood obesity is that which we refuse to admit: kids are fat because parents aren’t doing their job. What’s the common thread in Parham’s and Obama’s arguments? That working moms can’t keep up. That working moms can’t fight the culture because they’re too busy.
Childhood obesity has tripled in the past three decades, which is — not coincidentally — the same period of time in which women have been encouraged to divorce their husbands (causing them to have to take full-time jobs outside the home) or leave their children in day care in search of their true calling. It is impossible to overstate this new reality in American households. Simply put, no one’s in the kitchen anymore. And with fewer moms at home to keep their children on a healthy routine, children’s health suffers.
To be sure, there are other factors to consider: the eradication of recess at school, for example, and the proliferation of candy and pre-packaged convenience foods. But even if schools offered great lunches, even if recess was put back in our schools, even if restaurants stopped making super-sized portions and candy ceased to be available at Sports Authority, children still have to be taught how to eat right — and the only people who can do this are parents.
That’s not how the Left think. To them, anything bad that happens in their personal lives is the direct result of someone having screwed them, or made their lives so challenging they can’t possibly navigate the world on their own. Rather than admit this, they manufacture a group of victims and package their solution in such a way that people feel compelled to jump on board.
By calling the new legislation the Hunger-Free Kids Act, Americans conjure an image of starving children throughout America — and who could feel good about themselves if they denied children food? Meanwhile, the 4.5 billion is merely needed to give parents an out.
Got a fat kid? That’s not your fault — it’s society’s fault.
We can throw all kinds of money at the obesity problem, but it will not make obese children any less obese. The only way to make a dent in childhood obesity is for parents to make serious changes in their lifestyle — and learn how to crack open a cookbook.
Full article:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/26/the-real-reason-why-kids-are-fat-1/
December 26, 2010 @ 10:00pm
The Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that was pushed through Congress just last week is a terrific example of all that is wrong with the Left. The proposed legislation includes $4.5 billion over 10 years for programs that are designed to…teach children how to eat.
Yup, the United States government has officially become Mom and Dad — which works out well for moms like Monet Parham, who’s suing McDonald’s for offering Happy Meals on their menu.
I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience. But as other busy working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.
This is a classic case of inept parenting. Lucky for her, Ms. Parham has a friend in another inept parent: Michelle Obama.
She was also once exasperated with trying to feed her kids. During her Let’s Move campaign last year, she said this:
Before coming to the White House, the president and I lived like most families: two working parents — too busy, not enough time, and I found myself unable to cook a good meal for my kids. Going to fast food more than I’d like, ordering pizza, and I started to see the effects on my family, particularly my kids.
Today, Mrs. Obama has a cook to oversee her children’s eating habits and has conveniently forgotten the significance of what she learned. Rather than suggest parents change their lifestyle to accommodate the needs of children, she passes legislation designed to take the onus off parents. According to Mrs. Obama,
We can’t just leave [the obesity dilemma] up to the parents.
Yet last year the First Lady also said this about childhood obesity:
This isn’t like a disease where we’re still waiting for a cure to be discovered – we know the cure for this. It doesn’t take some stroke of genius or feat of technology.
No, it doesn’t — which is why the Obama administration has just thrown billions of your tax dollars down the toilet. Today’s parents have all the information they could possibly need about nutrition. Spending more money trying to educate them — by requiring front-of-package labeling that discloses a product’s nutritional value, for example — is futile. As Obama herself points out, it doesn’t take “a stroke of genius” to discern the good stuff from the bad stuff.
The truth about childhood obesity is that which we refuse to admit: kids are fat because parents aren’t doing their job. What’s the common thread in Parham’s and Obama’s arguments? That working moms can’t keep up. That working moms can’t fight the culture because they’re too busy.
Childhood obesity has tripled in the past three decades, which is — not coincidentally — the same period of time in which women have been encouraged to divorce their husbands (causing them to have to take full-time jobs outside the home) or leave their children in day care in search of their true calling. It is impossible to overstate this new reality in American households. Simply put, no one’s in the kitchen anymore. And with fewer moms at home to keep their children on a healthy routine, children’s health suffers.
To be sure, there are other factors to consider: the eradication of recess at school, for example, and the proliferation of candy and pre-packaged convenience foods. But even if schools offered great lunches, even if recess was put back in our schools, even if restaurants stopped making super-sized portions and candy ceased to be available at Sports Authority, children still have to be taught how to eat right — and the only people who can do this are parents.
That’s not how the Left think. To them, anything bad that happens in their personal lives is the direct result of someone having screwed them, or made their lives so challenging they can’t possibly navigate the world on their own. Rather than admit this, they manufacture a group of victims and package their solution in such a way that people feel compelled to jump on board.
By calling the new legislation the Hunger-Free Kids Act, Americans conjure an image of starving children throughout America — and who could feel good about themselves if they denied children food? Meanwhile, the 4.5 billion is merely needed to give parents an out.
Got a fat kid? That’s not your fault — it’s society’s fault.
We can throw all kinds of money at the obesity problem, but it will not make obese children any less obese. The only way to make a dent in childhood obesity is for parents to make serious changes in their lifestyle — and learn how to crack open a cookbook.
Full article:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/26/the-real-reason-why-kids-are-fat-1/
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sex and Consequences
By: Jill Stanek
WorldNetDaily.com
Whistleblowers, November 2010
Homosexual and AIDS activists heckled President Obama during a Democrat fundraiser in New York on Sept. 22, complaining about the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and inadequate AIDS funding.
Obama responded that his administration had increased AIDS funding and offensively added, "The people will potentially take over if we don't focus on the election, I promise you, will cut AIDS funding," as if that really would happen, as if Republicans want those afflicted with AIDS to die. Obama's comment was no different than one made by boorish Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans opposing Obamacare of wanting sick people to "die quickly."
In fact, worldwide AIDS funding increased dramatically under President Bush, who created the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which committed $15 billion over 5 years – with a focus on prevention. And Obama flatlined that funding.
But I digress. The point is that we know the most prevalent cause of AIDS in the U.S. is men having sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control has just released tragic new statistics:
"Gay and bisexual men … men who have sex with men of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV," the report states. "Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing."
The statistics revealed the following:
Men who have sex with men account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the US (48 percent, or an estimated 532,000 total persons);
Such men account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53 percent, or an estimated 28,700 infections);
While the CDC estimates that such men account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among such men in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men;
Such men are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection-drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
The fact is, men having sex with men is bad for their health. The prevalence of AIDS is just one indicator.
Likewise, promiscuous heterosexual sex is bad for one's health, leading to a prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases – some incurable, like herpes; some incurable and deadly, like AIDS – unwanted pregnancies and infertility, to name just three physical consequences. But where are the health warnings?
We get warnings about the consequences of every other destructive behavior. Smoking cigarettes leads to cancer; alcoholism annihilates livers; driving drunk makes mothers MADD; texting while driving kills friends; drugs damage brain cells; failure to wear motorcycle helmets splatters brain cells; not paying taxes sends the IRS; sugar is bad; fat is bad; those and overeating lead to obesity, which Michelle is currently crusading as very bad.
But having willy-nilly sex? Shut up.
Then we see the radical 1960s sexual revolutionaries now in control of the messaging and government purse strings say hands off, pardon the pun.
If we didn't understand the ideology, their response would be inexplicable. But for the destructive behavior of having wanton nonmonogamous and/or homosexual sex, they ridicule and attempt to silence rational voices warning against it while throwing billions of dollars not at prevention but at ways to deter the consequences.
They say to wear condoms, often giving them away at taxpayer expense. If condoms fail, or people are too careless, stupid or frenzied to don them, they funnel billions for the development and distribution of AIDS drugs to delay the victims' inevitable death (viruses can't be cured, no matter what the type, even the common cold) or push for abortions at taxpayer expense.
Rather than encourage kids not to behave like sexual animals, they throw millions to teach them how not only to behave like sexual animals but to avoid the consequences by offering cheap or free birth-control pills, STD treatments at school and taxis to the nearest abortion mill during math class.
While the sexual revolutionaries become angry at the prevalence of malt-liquor billboard advertising in minority communities or when cigarette manufacturers target young people, they encourage the prevalence of abortion clinics in minority communities and target young people with their sex propaganda.
Some people wonder why I sometimes post on the topic of homosexuality on my pro-life blog. It's because the abortion and homosexual movement are flip sides of the same coin. Both want illicit sex without consequences. Both want to stop social conservatives from educating about the consequences. And both want taxpayers to pay for the inevitable consequences when they develop.
WorldNetDaily.com
Whistleblowers, November 2010
Homosexual and AIDS activists heckled President Obama during a Democrat fundraiser in New York on Sept. 22, complaining about the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and inadequate AIDS funding.
Obama responded that his administration had increased AIDS funding and offensively added, "The people will potentially take over if we don't focus on the election, I promise you, will cut AIDS funding," as if that really would happen, as if Republicans want those afflicted with AIDS to die. Obama's comment was no different than one made by boorish Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans opposing Obamacare of wanting sick people to "die quickly."
In fact, worldwide AIDS funding increased dramatically under President Bush, who created the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which committed $15 billion over 5 years – with a focus on prevention. And Obama flatlined that funding.
But I digress. The point is that we know the most prevalent cause of AIDS in the U.S. is men having sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control has just released tragic new statistics:
"Gay and bisexual men … men who have sex with men of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV," the report states. "Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing."
The statistics revealed the following:
Men who have sex with men account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the US (48 percent, or an estimated 532,000 total persons);
Such men account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53 percent, or an estimated 28,700 infections);
While the CDC estimates that such men account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among such men in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men;
Such men are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection-drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
The fact is, men having sex with men is bad for their health. The prevalence of AIDS is just one indicator.
Likewise, promiscuous heterosexual sex is bad for one's health, leading to a prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases – some incurable, like herpes; some incurable and deadly, like AIDS – unwanted pregnancies and infertility, to name just three physical consequences. But where are the health warnings?
We get warnings about the consequences of every other destructive behavior. Smoking cigarettes leads to cancer; alcoholism annihilates livers; driving drunk makes mothers MADD; texting while driving kills friends; drugs damage brain cells; failure to wear motorcycle helmets splatters brain cells; not paying taxes sends the IRS; sugar is bad; fat is bad; those and overeating lead to obesity, which Michelle is currently crusading as very bad.
But having willy-nilly sex? Shut up.
Then we see the radical 1960s sexual revolutionaries now in control of the messaging and government purse strings say hands off, pardon the pun.
If we didn't understand the ideology, their response would be inexplicable. But for the destructive behavior of having wanton nonmonogamous and/or homosexual sex, they ridicule and attempt to silence rational voices warning against it while throwing billions of dollars not at prevention but at ways to deter the consequences.
They say to wear condoms, often giving them away at taxpayer expense. If condoms fail, or people are too careless, stupid or frenzied to don them, they funnel billions for the development and distribution of AIDS drugs to delay the victims' inevitable death (viruses can't be cured, no matter what the type, even the common cold) or push for abortions at taxpayer expense.
Rather than encourage kids not to behave like sexual animals, they throw millions to teach them how not only to behave like sexual animals but to avoid the consequences by offering cheap or free birth-control pills, STD treatments at school and taxis to the nearest abortion mill during math class.
While the sexual revolutionaries become angry at the prevalence of malt-liquor billboard advertising in minority communities or when cigarette manufacturers target young people, they encourage the prevalence of abortion clinics in minority communities and target young people with their sex propaganda.
Some people wonder why I sometimes post on the topic of homosexuality on my pro-life blog. It's because the abortion and homosexual movement are flip sides of the same coin. Both want illicit sex without consequences. Both want to stop social conservatives from educating about the consequences. And both want taxpayers to pay for the inevitable consequences when they develop.
Time for Christians to Shred Their Bibles
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Many of us grew up in Sunday School and church. We have heard the great Bible stories over and over. We heard about the story of how Moses’ mother defied Pharaoh and hid her little baby boy in bulrushes. We heard the story of how Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster defending a Hebrew slave and later became the great deliverer of God’s people. We heard the story of young David going out alone against the Philistines’ greatest warrior, Goliath. We heard the story of how Saul’s servants refused to carry out the king’s order to murder the priest Ahimelech. We know well the story of Daniel who defied his government’s order to refrain from praying. The names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are very familiar to us. We heard our teachers and preachers extol their courage in defying the government’s order to bow to the image of their emperor. We remember that John the Baptist went to prison (and was eventually beheaded), not for preaching the Gospel, but for criticizing the king for his immoral behavior. We certainly recall the story of Simon Peter who bluntly told his civil magistrates, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We know that the Apostle Paul wrote many of his epistles from inside government prisons. We certainly recall that before John penned the Revelation, he had been banished to an island-prison by his civil authorities.
I challenge Christians to objectively look at the great stories of Bible heroes (in both testaments) and observe how many times they are noted for either being martyred for defying a civil authority, or, perhaps, for being delivered from death for defying a civil authority. The stories of defiance to civil government (in one form or another) comprise a great percentage of all the stories contained in the Bible--perhaps even a majority of them.
So, how has it happened that a majority of today’s Christians, it seems, have become such sheepish slaves of government? How has it happened that, for the most part, the concept of courage in the face of government oppression has been totally lost to the average Christian, pastor, and church? For all intents and purposes, it is time for many Christians to shred their Bibles, because the lessons and principles of God’s Word have absolutely no influence over their attitudes and conduct.
For example, if the story of Peter in prison were being experienced today, instead of the church rallying behind their pastor and conducting an all-night prayer meeting for him, most church members would be excoriating him in the name of Romans chapter 13. Instead of Paul being let down the wall in a basket to escape the civil authorities trying to apprehend him, the average Christian today would be the first one to turn him over to the authorities.
In the mind of the average Christian, God is not God; government is God! For instance, when one well-known Christian attorney was recently confronted by the teaching of Scripture relative to the church’s independence from government (meaning, no church should allow itself to be subject to the government’s tyrannical 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt status), he said, “That might be Biblically correct, but it is not legally correct.” In other words, the “Christian” attorney would rather a church be legal than Biblical. And, unfortunately, that seems to be the attitude of the vast majority of professing Christians today. They would rather please the government than please God; they would rather obey the government than obey God; they would rather be at peace with the government than be at peace with God.
And when it comes to the courage of risking anything of value in order to do right, forget it!
Think of what Abram risked when he obeyed God and left his country and kin and struck out for a land that God had not even told him of. Think of what Moses risked when he killed that Egyptian; think of what Joshua and Caleb risked when they defied the entire nation that was following the evil counsel of the ten spies; think of what David risked when he faced the giant; think of what Elijah risked when he confronted 850 false prophets all by himself; think of what the Old Testament prophets risked when they rebuked or challenged the kings of Israel and Judah; think of what the disciples risked when they “left all” and followed Jesus; think of what the early church risked when it embraced the Gospel and defied the wishes of Rome and Jewry (not to mention their own families and friends). But these stories are more like fairy tales to the average Christian today. They serve no practical benefit whatsoever!
Let a church deacon, trustee, or elder be told by some government-backed attorney that he is really a corporate officer, subject to the laws and punishments of IRS tax codes, and that church leader will say anything, sign anything, or do anything to save his own financial security. In order to not jeopardize his own standing with the IRS, that same church leader would turn his back on his best friend, or gladly join with the government in prosecuting a fellow believer.
I personally know of more than one case where professing Christians either lied against a beloved brother in order to protect themselves against threatened government (read: IRS) penalties, or actually testified for the prosecution (read: IRS) under oath in a court of law against a Christian brother. In each case, these “brothers” actually felt it was their “Christian duty” to betray their friends and brothers and help the government.
I am reminded of the verse where Jesus said, “Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2 KJV)
I am also reminded of the warning from the prophet Jeremiah when he cautioned, “Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.” (Jeremiah 9:4,5 KJV)
Jeremiah’s prophecy is spot-on! Christians today cannot be trusted to be faithful to the truth; they cannot be trusted to not betray and turn against their brethren; they cannot be trusted to not be party with slander and libel. If it means saving their own skin, or keeping their bread buttered, or staying in the good graces of the IRS, they would sell out their best friend--maybe even their own mother! And it is no coincidence that Jeremiah, himself, experienced firsthand that which he had spoken. It is no wonder he said, “Trust ye not any brother.”
When will Christians get it through their heads (and in their hearts) that oftentimes government is the enemy of God? When will they understand that they have only one Sovereign: King Jesus? When will they come to comprehend that helping government perpetrate unjust action against fellow believers is a crime against Heaven? When will they stop talking about the Bible and actually start internalizing its teachings, examples, and principles?
It has gotten to the point today many unbelievers are far more trustworthy than today’s Christians--especially when it comes to the subject of resisting unjust government. It grieves me say that many “Christian” attorneys, politicians, pastors, and church leaders are merely shills and toadies for a government that has often become both oppressive and illegitimate!
May God help us! He will have to, because we won’t get much help from the vast majority of today’s professing Christians. That is for sure!
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin628.htm
December 16, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Many of us grew up in Sunday School and church. We have heard the great Bible stories over and over. We heard about the story of how Moses’ mother defied Pharaoh and hid her little baby boy in bulrushes. We heard the story of how Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster defending a Hebrew slave and later became the great deliverer of God’s people. We heard the story of young David going out alone against the Philistines’ greatest warrior, Goliath. We heard the story of how Saul’s servants refused to carry out the king’s order to murder the priest Ahimelech. We know well the story of Daniel who defied his government’s order to refrain from praying. The names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are very familiar to us. We heard our teachers and preachers extol their courage in defying the government’s order to bow to the image of their emperor. We remember that John the Baptist went to prison (and was eventually beheaded), not for preaching the Gospel, but for criticizing the king for his immoral behavior. We certainly recall the story of Simon Peter who bluntly told his civil magistrates, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We know that the Apostle Paul wrote many of his epistles from inside government prisons. We certainly recall that before John penned the Revelation, he had been banished to an island-prison by his civil authorities.
I challenge Christians to objectively look at the great stories of Bible heroes (in both testaments) and observe how many times they are noted for either being martyred for defying a civil authority, or, perhaps, for being delivered from death for defying a civil authority. The stories of defiance to civil government (in one form or another) comprise a great percentage of all the stories contained in the Bible--perhaps even a majority of them.
So, how has it happened that a majority of today’s Christians, it seems, have become such sheepish slaves of government? How has it happened that, for the most part, the concept of courage in the face of government oppression has been totally lost to the average Christian, pastor, and church? For all intents and purposes, it is time for many Christians to shred their Bibles, because the lessons and principles of God’s Word have absolutely no influence over their attitudes and conduct.
For example, if the story of Peter in prison were being experienced today, instead of the church rallying behind their pastor and conducting an all-night prayer meeting for him, most church members would be excoriating him in the name of Romans chapter 13. Instead of Paul being let down the wall in a basket to escape the civil authorities trying to apprehend him, the average Christian today would be the first one to turn him over to the authorities.
In the mind of the average Christian, God is not God; government is God! For instance, when one well-known Christian attorney was recently confronted by the teaching of Scripture relative to the church’s independence from government (meaning, no church should allow itself to be subject to the government’s tyrannical 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt status), he said, “That might be Biblically correct, but it is not legally correct.” In other words, the “Christian” attorney would rather a church be legal than Biblical. And, unfortunately, that seems to be the attitude of the vast majority of professing Christians today. They would rather please the government than please God; they would rather obey the government than obey God; they would rather be at peace with the government than be at peace with God.
And when it comes to the courage of risking anything of value in order to do right, forget it!
Think of what Abram risked when he obeyed God and left his country and kin and struck out for a land that God had not even told him of. Think of what Moses risked when he killed that Egyptian; think of what Joshua and Caleb risked when they defied the entire nation that was following the evil counsel of the ten spies; think of what David risked when he faced the giant; think of what Elijah risked when he confronted 850 false prophets all by himself; think of what the Old Testament prophets risked when they rebuked or challenged the kings of Israel and Judah; think of what the disciples risked when they “left all” and followed Jesus; think of what the early church risked when it embraced the Gospel and defied the wishes of Rome and Jewry (not to mention their own families and friends). But these stories are more like fairy tales to the average Christian today. They serve no practical benefit whatsoever!
Let a church deacon, trustee, or elder be told by some government-backed attorney that he is really a corporate officer, subject to the laws and punishments of IRS tax codes, and that church leader will say anything, sign anything, or do anything to save his own financial security. In order to not jeopardize his own standing with the IRS, that same church leader would turn his back on his best friend, or gladly join with the government in prosecuting a fellow believer.
I personally know of more than one case where professing Christians either lied against a beloved brother in order to protect themselves against threatened government (read: IRS) penalties, or actually testified for the prosecution (read: IRS) under oath in a court of law against a Christian brother. In each case, these “brothers” actually felt it was their “Christian duty” to betray their friends and brothers and help the government.
I am reminded of the verse where Jesus said, “Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2 KJV)
I am also reminded of the warning from the prophet Jeremiah when he cautioned, “Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.” (Jeremiah 9:4,5 KJV)
Jeremiah’s prophecy is spot-on! Christians today cannot be trusted to be faithful to the truth; they cannot be trusted to not betray and turn against their brethren; they cannot be trusted to not be party with slander and libel. If it means saving their own skin, or keeping their bread buttered, or staying in the good graces of the IRS, they would sell out their best friend--maybe even their own mother! And it is no coincidence that Jeremiah, himself, experienced firsthand that which he had spoken. It is no wonder he said, “Trust ye not any brother.”
When will Christians get it through their heads (and in their hearts) that oftentimes government is the enemy of God? When will they understand that they have only one Sovereign: King Jesus? When will they come to comprehend that helping government perpetrate unjust action against fellow believers is a crime against Heaven? When will they stop talking about the Bible and actually start internalizing its teachings, examples, and principles?
It has gotten to the point today many unbelievers are far more trustworthy than today’s Christians--especially when it comes to the subject of resisting unjust government. It grieves me say that many “Christian” attorneys, politicians, pastors, and church leaders are merely shills and toadies for a government that has often become both oppressive and illegitimate!
May God help us! He will have to, because we won’t get much help from the vast majority of today’s professing Christians. That is for sure!
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin628.htm
Another step on the path to the greater agenda
The issue has never been about "equality", it has always been about normalizing perverse behavior in our society.
"We will celebrate this important victory for five minutes and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do," Richard Socarides, the head of Equality Matters, a new liberal advocacy group, told the New York Times.
"Where you stand on the issue of marriage has become a kind of political litmus test for gay voters on whether you support full or partial equality... Just saying you are for equal rights will no longer cut it," Socarides, who once advised former president Bill Clinton, wrote on his website.
He and other activists yearn for the repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101220/ts_alt_afp/usmilitarygayspoliticsrights
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20marriage.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Saturday sent Lady Gaga a message on Twitter:
#DADT on it's way to becoming history.
Later he tweeted: @ ladygaga We did it! #DADTis a thing of the past.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40733618/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
"We will celebrate this important victory for five minutes and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do," Richard Socarides, the head of Equality Matters, a new liberal advocacy group, told the New York Times.
"Where you stand on the issue of marriage has become a kind of political litmus test for gay voters on whether you support full or partial equality... Just saying you are for equal rights will no longer cut it," Socarides, who once advised former president Bill Clinton, wrote on his website.
He and other activists yearn for the repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101220/ts_alt_afp/usmilitarygayspoliticsrights
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20marriage.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Saturday sent Lady Gaga a message on Twitter:
#DADT on it's way to becoming history.
Later he tweeted: @ ladygaga We did it! #DADTis a thing of the past.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40733618/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Year after Year, Americans say NO to Redefining Marriage
Despite the almost total capitulation of elite America – including the news media, both liberal and conservative – on the issue of same-sex marriage, Americans themselves overwhelmingly reject [so-called] homosexual marriage.
True, it has been forced on them by rogue judges – in Massachusetts in 2003, in New Jersey in 2006, in California and Connecticut in 2008, and in Iowa in 2009. Finally in 2009, Vermont gave in when its legislature, without being forced by a judge, legalized same-sex marriage. Maine and New Hampshire then followed suit.
But as the Heritage Foundation affirms: The only reason same-sex marriage exists in the U.S. at all (currently homosexual couples can get marriage licenses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C.) is because of activist courts:
“Not a single state… has seen its populace vote directly to install same-sex marriage. Popular majorities in states as diverse as Maine, California, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi have voted to protect marriage. Overall almost 64 percent of the nearly 60 million popular votes cast to date have favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Here’s a dose of American reality:
Forty-one states have passed statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. (The Connecticut and Iowa supreme courts later invalidated their states’ laws banning same-sex marriage.)
And 30 states have language in their own state constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Repeatedly, year after year; Americans say “no” to same-sex marriage. The question is: Are regular citizens just ignoramuses and bigots – or are they somehow wiser than the media pundits and “experts”?
[Taken from Whistleblowers, November 2010]
www.wnd.com, Worldnetdaily.com
True, it has been forced on them by rogue judges – in Massachusetts in 2003, in New Jersey in 2006, in California and Connecticut in 2008, and in Iowa in 2009. Finally in 2009, Vermont gave in when its legislature, without being forced by a judge, legalized same-sex marriage. Maine and New Hampshire then followed suit.
But as the Heritage Foundation affirms: The only reason same-sex marriage exists in the U.S. at all (currently homosexual couples can get marriage licenses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C.) is because of activist courts:
“Not a single state… has seen its populace vote directly to install same-sex marriage. Popular majorities in states as diverse as Maine, California, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi have voted to protect marriage. Overall almost 64 percent of the nearly 60 million popular votes cast to date have favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Here’s a dose of American reality:
Forty-one states have passed statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. (The Connecticut and Iowa supreme courts later invalidated their states’ laws banning same-sex marriage.)
And 30 states have language in their own state constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Repeatedly, year after year; Americans say “no” to same-sex marriage. The question is: Are regular citizens just ignoramuses and bigots – or are they somehow wiser than the media pundits and “experts”?
[Taken from Whistleblowers, November 2010]
www.wnd.com, Worldnetdaily.com
Cultural Marxism
Cultural Marxism, also known as "political correctness", is the use of art, music, education, and media to condition people to accept the essential elements of Marxism without identifying them as such.
After a few generations of this conditioning, Marxism becomes the new reality without a violent revolution and even without awareness that a revolution has occurred.
- Pat Buchanon
After a few generations of this conditioning, Marxism becomes the new reality without a violent revolution and even without awareness that a revolution has occurred.
"The United States has undergone a cultural, moral, and religious revolution. ...
We are two countries now. We are two countries morally, culturally, socially, and theologically.
Cultural wars do not lend themselves to peaceful co-existence. One side prevails, or the other prevails.
The truth is that, while we won the Cold War with political and economic Communism, we lost the war with cultural Marxism, which now is dominant.
Those of us who are traditionalists, we are the counterculture."
- Pat Buchanon
Monday, December 27, 2010
The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers
[Excerpt]
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis.
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.aspx
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis.
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.aspx
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Science Turns Authoritarian
Excerpts from Wired article
By Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.
In a Wired article published at the end of May, writer Erin Biba bemoans the fact that "science" is losing its credibility with the public. The plunge in the public's belief in catastrophic climate change is her primary example. Biba wonders whether the loss of credibility might be due to the malfeasance unearthed by the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, but comes to the conclusion that malfeasance isn't the cause of the public's disaffection. No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit.
While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public's declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.
We decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for the growth in the use of what we characterize as 'authoritarian' phrasing when it comes to scientific findings.
In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as "we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer" or "we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt." Or "we havefound that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease." Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, "Here are our findings. Read it and believe." Instead, activist scientists such as NASA's James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, "Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way..."
Full Article:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian
["O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20)]
By Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.
In a Wired article published at the end of May, writer Erin Biba bemoans the fact that "science" is losing its credibility with the public. The plunge in the public's belief in catastrophic climate change is her primary example. Biba wonders whether the loss of credibility might be due to the malfeasance unearthed by the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, but comes to the conclusion that malfeasance isn't the cause of the public's disaffection. No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit.
While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public's declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.
We decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for the growth in the use of what we characterize as 'authoritarian' phrasing when it comes to scientific findings.
In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as "we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer" or "we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt." Or "we havefound that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease." Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, "Here are our findings. Read it and believe." Instead, activist scientists such as NASA's James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, "Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way..."
Full Article:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian
["O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20)]
The Dangers of Extreme Calvinism
The Dangers of Extreme Calvinism
One of the issues that the Christian Church has had to face over the years is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. One side says that Gods election (choosing) is the ultimate path to salvation, while the other side says that man has free-will [concerning] salvation.
This debate is quickly spilling over into our New Testament assemblies. Assemblies have usually taken a middle of the road position on this issue. We see the truths of God choosing (Romans 11:7) and man choosing (Matthew 23:37 and Luke 18:22,23) both taught in Scripture. And if we dont completely understand how these two concepts fit together, we still accept all that the Bible has to say about this issue.
Yet there are some within our assemblies who are pushing us to take a more Calvinistic view. Some are graduates of the schools we have supported, and some have simply fallen under the sway of well meaning but extremely zealous Calvinists. I write this article because I am afraid that extreme Calvinism has serious consequences, and is going to damage many assemblies over the next few years, and will cause much disunity and many splits.
Perhaps the greatest danger of extreme Calvinism is its obsessive nature. While some who hold this view possess fine Christian character, many can talk about little else. They will push the doctrine of election when they preach, when they pray and when they worship. Some will even push for the adoption of this doctrine to become a test of fellowship. Some assemblies, having fallen under the influence of strong Calvinists, now declare that a man cannot be an elder until he has understood Gods sovereign grace (which is a euphemism for adopting a strongly Calvinist position). It is probable that these people will feel that other Christians have a defective view of Gods sovereignty.
Another danger concerns how extreme Calvinists deal with Scripture. Any verse that seems to imply human decision must be explained away or made to fit into some sophisticated theory. Some verses are radically reinterpreted. For example, an extreme Calvinist would say that the gift in Ephesians 2:8,9 is faith, not salvation. They will tell us that references to world, as in John 3:16, do not actually refer to all men, but only the elect.
A third danger concerns how the Gospel is preached. We are thankful for every Calvinist who sees the need to preach the Gospel (and most do see this need), but we might be surprised at some of what they say. Instead of calling out for sinners to repent and make their decision today, they will pray that God would give them grace. It is likely that a sinner would be confused at what the Calvinist is saying. An extreme Calvinist can never tell a sinner that God loves them and wants to save them, because in their system of theology, God only loves some. The extreme Calvinist will never tell sinners that Christ died to save them, because under their system of theology, Christs atonement is limited, and He only died for some.
The final danger of extreme Calvinism is that it presents an unbiblical viewpoint of the character of God. Some in the Calvinist camp, including Arthur W. Pink, and even John Calvin himself believed that God creates people for the purpose of damning them. If this was the teaching of Scripture, we would be forced to accept it, but it is not. Such views are the speculations of theological extremists.
The relationship between Gods election and mans choosing is a deep one. There are no easy answers. But both truths are taught in Scripture. Calvinists are not [necessarily] cultists, but brothers and sisters who have taken a Biblical truth to an unbiblical extreme. Calvinism, in its extreme form has very serious consequences, and those who shepherd the believers, as well as all Christians who love the Word of God and the Gospel, must guard against those who would push us into a dangerously one-sided position.
Retrieved from:
http://www.brethrenonline.org/articles/EXCALVIN.HTM
One of the issues that the Christian Church has had to face over the years is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. One side says that Gods election (choosing) is the ultimate path to salvation, while the other side says that man has free-will [concerning] salvation.
This debate is quickly spilling over into our New Testament assemblies. Assemblies have usually taken a middle of the road position on this issue. We see the truths of God choosing (Romans 11:7) and man choosing (Matthew 23:37 and Luke 18:22,23) both taught in Scripture. And if we dont completely understand how these two concepts fit together, we still accept all that the Bible has to say about this issue.
Yet there are some within our assemblies who are pushing us to take a more Calvinistic view. Some are graduates of the schools we have supported, and some have simply fallen under the sway of well meaning but extremely zealous Calvinists. I write this article because I am afraid that extreme Calvinism has serious consequences, and is going to damage many assemblies over the next few years, and will cause much disunity and many splits.
Perhaps the greatest danger of extreme Calvinism is its obsessive nature. While some who hold this view possess fine Christian character, many can talk about little else. They will push the doctrine of election when they preach, when they pray and when they worship. Some will even push for the adoption of this doctrine to become a test of fellowship. Some assemblies, having fallen under the influence of strong Calvinists, now declare that a man cannot be an elder until he has understood Gods sovereign grace (which is a euphemism for adopting a strongly Calvinist position). It is probable that these people will feel that other Christians have a defective view of Gods sovereignty.
Another danger concerns how extreme Calvinists deal with Scripture. Any verse that seems to imply human decision must be explained away or made to fit into some sophisticated theory. Some verses are radically reinterpreted. For example, an extreme Calvinist would say that the gift in Ephesians 2:8,9 is faith, not salvation. They will tell us that references to world, as in John 3:16, do not actually refer to all men, but only the elect.
A third danger concerns how the Gospel is preached. We are thankful for every Calvinist who sees the need to preach the Gospel (and most do see this need), but we might be surprised at some of what they say. Instead of calling out for sinners to repent and make their decision today, they will pray that God would give them grace. It is likely that a sinner would be confused at what the Calvinist is saying. An extreme Calvinist can never tell a sinner that God loves them and wants to save them, because in their system of theology, God only loves some. The extreme Calvinist will never tell sinners that Christ died to save them, because under their system of theology, Christs atonement is limited, and He only died for some.
The final danger of extreme Calvinism is that it presents an unbiblical viewpoint of the character of God. Some in the Calvinist camp, including Arthur W. Pink, and even John Calvin himself believed that God creates people for the purpose of damning them. If this was the teaching of Scripture, we would be forced to accept it, but it is not. Such views are the speculations of theological extremists.
The relationship between Gods election and mans choosing is a deep one. There are no easy answers. But both truths are taught in Scripture. Calvinists are not [necessarily] cultists, but brothers and sisters who have taken a Biblical truth to an unbiblical extreme. Calvinism, in its extreme form has very serious consequences, and those who shepherd the believers, as well as all Christians who love the Word of God and the Gospel, must guard against those who would push us into a dangerously one-sided position.
Retrieved from:
http://www.brethrenonline.org/articles/EXCALVIN.HTM
HOSTAGE TO THE LAW
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
December 22, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
"If the law supposes that,’ the law is an ass, an idiot.' Thus, the law is stupid.” -Mr. Bumble of the Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist
“And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers” -Luke 11.46
It is important to understand that the U.S. Code contains many thousands - a multitude - of statutory laws. Arguably one cannot get through a day without violating one or more of these statutes; they are all inclusive, intrusive, and invasive to every segment of our day to day existence. They are a virtual web of entrapment and they have been specifically drafted to that purpose. These statutes are a practical catch-all that enables the control of the people by the federal government through its increasingly oppressive and tyrannical enforcement agencies. The U.S. Code as it exists is an enemy of justice and it separates the people from their God-given and inherent liberties.
Those who insist that statutory law is not binding because it was enacted without the consent of the people are barking up the wrong tree. In the secular subjective minds of the federal judiciary and the federal government the statutes of the U.S. Code are binding and enforceable. Some people are hard learners and those who shun the spiritual path just do not understand that they will never of their own ability bring about a return of Constitutional government, common law, or any of the other tenants or personal freedoms of a Constitutional Republic.
I am actually weary of the writing of articles; they do little good other than to provide some entertainment. Every day I get up and realize that I am living in a nation overrun with idiots; my Dad would have said should he have lived in these days, that these haven't enough sense to pour pee out of a boot.
Those who think that these laws, many of them blatantly unconstitutional, are not binding upon them and that they are not subject to a totalitarian state are full of it, baloney that is...the federal prisons contain many who thought likewise and they will languish in those prisons until the sentences expire on their transgressions of certain capricious and arbitrary statutory laws that were imposed by a system that now has complete autonomy over the people. Who will risk the wrath of the agents of a totalistic system to come to their aid or defense? The answer is no one. To put it bluntly we are screwed, and the only consolation and comfort I have is the fact that these abominable degenerates will stand in the blinding presence of the Lord one day and there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the face of His judgment.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
I do admire and respect those who have fought an almost continual battle to bring this nation back to its roots as a Constitutional Republic. I am afraid that those so disposed are few and the few are hostage to the will of the majority - a now completely deceived, ignorant, and indolent people - that have eschewed personal liberty in exchange for federal and state entitlements (unearned government handouts).
We once were, but are no more, a spiritual people. The Apostle Paul predicted that we would be in these days a people having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Indeed we are a nation of counterfeit Christians. Satan and his legions of demonic angels have been released from God's bounds and given the agency to work their will upon a morally filthy people.
When I entered the law enforcement profession we, in my state, were functioning under the last vestiges of Common Law. Embedded in our laws were props for upholding the moral principles of God's Commandments. The lower courts were still occupied by individuals that were selected by the people. Our cases were most often initiated by a petition - or filing - with an elected Justice of the Peace, and the Sheriffs' were sovereign and endowed with the authority to summon the power of the county and, through the Governor, the power of the state. The all-encompassing and all-corrupting bureaucracies had not come to the full realization that they have achieved today.
PROGRESSIVE REFORM BRINGS ALL GOOD THINGS TO AN END
“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” -Luke 11.52
In 1977 the state legislature of my state - without rational reason and at the instigation of the state bar association - undertook a massive revision of the state code, including the criminal statutes. The elective offices of the Justice of the Peace and the Township Constable were eliminated without a slightest protestation by the people. The Justices of the Peace were replaced by politically appointed judicial magistrates and it was mandated that these be lawyers.
This new codification of laws became, as a whole, a net of secularly enforced controlling statutes that regulated every minute aspect of the lives of the people, just as the U.S. Code assures a federal corporate ascendancy over the exclusive personal rights of the peoples of the nation. All laws that affirmed the moral principles embodied in God's Commandments were removed and made void. The people rejoiced they could now commit immoral acts, revel in degrading and base behavior, and flaunt their vices before God. Indeed the people of this nation jubilate for the license to sin without condemnation that has been granted them by an irreverent system.
To solidify this seizure of a body of law of and by the people the legislature further reorganized the judicial system. At the constant and insistently aggressive demands of the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court the legislature caved in to his continual carping and badgering and removed the Office of the Clerk of Court from the county elective process and established state authority over the office. The erasure of the principles of common law was now complete.
The courts of all levels of government now either refuse or dismiss petitions submitted under Common Law. Some lawyers (there are yet some whom I respect) privately complain that the steady and ever-increasing creation of new statutes and the continual appending of revisions and additions to these have seriously disrupted an accrual of case law that has greatly impeded justice.
My state was not alone in its surrender to the progressives as it was joined in the departure from common law and the institution of arbitrary statutes and decrees by the other states. The laws in the entirety of this nation are now employed to enforce corporate government control over the people rather than to administer true justice. Laws are piled upon laws; even un-elected bureaucrats are given the authority to write administrative decrees that have the force of law. We are completely under the rule of a corporate system, and subject to the whims and caprices of those in the judiciary and beyond of no accountability to the people.
The displacement of state power by federal power, in regard to criminal law and the regulation of morals, is essentially complete. The individual states have allocated the powers that accrue to the tenth amendment to central governmental authority. Much of this I believe was that they could abrogate the responsibility for the welfare of their people and pass it unto the feds. They were most happy to line up at the trough - along with their indolent subjects - for federal handouts. In doing so they were bound to servitude to a central government by the prerequisites that were attached to these grants and so-called endowments.
Attempts to stem the tide in regard to this bastardization of the laws were sporadic, weak, and futile. Weak-minded citizens and an ignorance of fundamental Constitutional law aided and abetted the dedicated and ever agitating enemies of government by the people.
BIG DADDY RULES ALL
The story of Corporate Federalism has been written in this nation, and the writing began in 1861 with the onset of the civil war. There are those who contend that the civil war was God’s judgment as punishment for the pursuance of slavery, in point of fact this hypothesis is both fictitious and spurious. The war was fought to roll back or nullify the tenth amendment and to establish corporate federal control over the states. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents these police powers are reserved - by the tenth amendment - to the individual states.
Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, this allocation of governmental power was viewed with grave concern by constitutionalists and by those explicating the superiority of a true Constitutional Republic over all other forms of governance. We have now come to a complete voluntary capitulation to federal corporate control and are on a short road to world governance.
The usurpation of state-rights and the allocation of power to corporate federalism could not have been accomplished without the complicity of an ill-educated people. I believe that the people are not truly intrinsically ignorant, but that they have been brought to such cognitive deficiency and falsity of thought by a patient, dedicated, and socially pervasive program by progressives to debase and replace righteous thought with degraded ideology, this to enable that one-world socialist government that these disciples of the devil pursue.
MEN WILL FAIL YOU – GOD NEVER WILL
To the cadence of unrighteous men this nation marches methodically and steadily upon the road to perdition. The present void apropos a moral foundation has accelerated a descent into the smoky chambers of the dark domain and doomed the souls of the millions that are being piped down this road by those that are corrupt of heart. Venal men are the undoing of this nation, who else is there to blame, but those who follow them.
Prepare your hearts for the coming of the Son; confess your sins and abjure your attraction to a Godless world, and He will be faithful to hear your prayer. And all God’s people say, Amen!
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim173.htm
December 22, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
"If the law supposes that,’ the law is an ass, an idiot.' Thus, the law is stupid.” -Mr. Bumble of the Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist
“And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers” -Luke 11.46
It is important to understand that the U.S. Code contains many thousands - a multitude - of statutory laws. Arguably one cannot get through a day without violating one or more of these statutes; they are all inclusive, intrusive, and invasive to every segment of our day to day existence. They are a virtual web of entrapment and they have been specifically drafted to that purpose. These statutes are a practical catch-all that enables the control of the people by the federal government through its increasingly oppressive and tyrannical enforcement agencies. The U.S. Code as it exists is an enemy of justice and it separates the people from their God-given and inherent liberties.
Those who insist that statutory law is not binding because it was enacted without the consent of the people are barking up the wrong tree. In the secular subjective minds of the federal judiciary and the federal government the statutes of the U.S. Code are binding and enforceable. Some people are hard learners and those who shun the spiritual path just do not understand that they will never of their own ability bring about a return of Constitutional government, common law, or any of the other tenants or personal freedoms of a Constitutional Republic.
I am actually weary of the writing of articles; they do little good other than to provide some entertainment. Every day I get up and realize that I am living in a nation overrun with idiots; my Dad would have said should he have lived in these days, that these haven't enough sense to pour pee out of a boot.
Those who think that these laws, many of them blatantly unconstitutional, are not binding upon them and that they are not subject to a totalitarian state are full of it, baloney that is...the federal prisons contain many who thought likewise and they will languish in those prisons until the sentences expire on their transgressions of certain capricious and arbitrary statutory laws that were imposed by a system that now has complete autonomy over the people. Who will risk the wrath of the agents of a totalistic system to come to their aid or defense? The answer is no one. To put it bluntly we are screwed, and the only consolation and comfort I have is the fact that these abominable degenerates will stand in the blinding presence of the Lord one day and there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the face of His judgment.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
I do admire and respect those who have fought an almost continual battle to bring this nation back to its roots as a Constitutional Republic. I am afraid that those so disposed are few and the few are hostage to the will of the majority - a now completely deceived, ignorant, and indolent people - that have eschewed personal liberty in exchange for federal and state entitlements (unearned government handouts).
We once were, but are no more, a spiritual people. The Apostle Paul predicted that we would be in these days a people having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Indeed we are a nation of counterfeit Christians. Satan and his legions of demonic angels have been released from God's bounds and given the agency to work their will upon a morally filthy people.
When I entered the law enforcement profession we, in my state, were functioning under the last vestiges of Common Law. Embedded in our laws were props for upholding the moral principles of God's Commandments. The lower courts were still occupied by individuals that were selected by the people. Our cases were most often initiated by a petition - or filing - with an elected Justice of the Peace, and the Sheriffs' were sovereign and endowed with the authority to summon the power of the county and, through the Governor, the power of the state. The all-encompassing and all-corrupting bureaucracies had not come to the full realization that they have achieved today.
PROGRESSIVE REFORM BRINGS ALL GOOD THINGS TO AN END
“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” -Luke 11.52
In 1977 the state legislature of my state - without rational reason and at the instigation of the state bar association - undertook a massive revision of the state code, including the criminal statutes. The elective offices of the Justice of the Peace and the Township Constable were eliminated without a slightest protestation by the people. The Justices of the Peace were replaced by politically appointed judicial magistrates and it was mandated that these be lawyers.
This new codification of laws became, as a whole, a net of secularly enforced controlling statutes that regulated every minute aspect of the lives of the people, just as the U.S. Code assures a federal corporate ascendancy over the exclusive personal rights of the peoples of the nation. All laws that affirmed the moral principles embodied in God's Commandments were removed and made void. The people rejoiced they could now commit immoral acts, revel in degrading and base behavior, and flaunt their vices before God. Indeed the people of this nation jubilate for the license to sin without condemnation that has been granted them by an irreverent system.
To solidify this seizure of a body of law of and by the people the legislature further reorganized the judicial system. At the constant and insistently aggressive demands of the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court the legislature caved in to his continual carping and badgering and removed the Office of the Clerk of Court from the county elective process and established state authority over the office. The erasure of the principles of common law was now complete.
The courts of all levels of government now either refuse or dismiss petitions submitted under Common Law. Some lawyers (there are yet some whom I respect) privately complain that the steady and ever-increasing creation of new statutes and the continual appending of revisions and additions to these have seriously disrupted an accrual of case law that has greatly impeded justice.
My state was not alone in its surrender to the progressives as it was joined in the departure from common law and the institution of arbitrary statutes and decrees by the other states. The laws in the entirety of this nation are now employed to enforce corporate government control over the people rather than to administer true justice. Laws are piled upon laws; even un-elected bureaucrats are given the authority to write administrative decrees that have the force of law. We are completely under the rule of a corporate system, and subject to the whims and caprices of those in the judiciary and beyond of no accountability to the people.
The displacement of state power by federal power, in regard to criminal law and the regulation of morals, is essentially complete. The individual states have allocated the powers that accrue to the tenth amendment to central governmental authority. Much of this I believe was that they could abrogate the responsibility for the welfare of their people and pass it unto the feds. They were most happy to line up at the trough - along with their indolent subjects - for federal handouts. In doing so they were bound to servitude to a central government by the prerequisites that were attached to these grants and so-called endowments.
Attempts to stem the tide in regard to this bastardization of the laws were sporadic, weak, and futile. Weak-minded citizens and an ignorance of fundamental Constitutional law aided and abetted the dedicated and ever agitating enemies of government by the people.
BIG DADDY RULES ALL
The story of Corporate Federalism has been written in this nation, and the writing began in 1861 with the onset of the civil war. There are those who contend that the civil war was God’s judgment as punishment for the pursuance of slavery, in point of fact this hypothesis is both fictitious and spurious. The war was fought to roll back or nullify the tenth amendment and to establish corporate federal control over the states. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents these police powers are reserved - by the tenth amendment - to the individual states.
Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, this allocation of governmental power was viewed with grave concern by constitutionalists and by those explicating the superiority of a true Constitutional Republic over all other forms of governance. We have now come to a complete voluntary capitulation to federal corporate control and are on a short road to world governance.
The usurpation of state-rights and the allocation of power to corporate federalism could not have been accomplished without the complicity of an ill-educated people. I believe that the people are not truly intrinsically ignorant, but that they have been brought to such cognitive deficiency and falsity of thought by a patient, dedicated, and socially pervasive program by progressives to debase and replace righteous thought with degraded ideology, this to enable that one-world socialist government that these disciples of the devil pursue.
MEN WILL FAIL YOU – GOD NEVER WILL
To the cadence of unrighteous men this nation marches methodically and steadily upon the road to perdition. The present void apropos a moral foundation has accelerated a descent into the smoky chambers of the dark domain and doomed the souls of the millions that are being piped down this road by those that are corrupt of heart. Venal men are the undoing of this nation, who else is there to blame, but those who follow them.
Prepare your hearts for the coming of the Son; confess your sins and abjure your attraction to a Godless world, and He will be faithful to hear your prayer. And all God’s people say, Amen!
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim173.htm
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
Posted: December 24, 2010
By Brian Fitzpatrick
WorldNetDaily
President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."
"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.
Retrieved from:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213
Posted: December 24, 2010
By Brian Fitzpatrick
WorldNetDaily
President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."
"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.
Retrieved from:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213
Friday, December 24, 2010
Obama is Creating Jobs…in Iran, Venezuela, and Russia
President Obama is now promising to focus on job creation and says that what he wants to do is create high-paying employment opportunities for Americans.
But Obama has already proven to be a job creator–overseas. Because of his continued anti-oil policies, he is pushing American producers away from expanding exploration and production here in the United States. By blocking offshore oil drilling and issuing fewer permits in those areas where drilling is already allowed, oil companies increasingly look overseas for production opportunities. And countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, couldn’t be happier. Why not? Oil prices are pushed higher and they are energy exporters. For energy importers like the United States, this is like an extra tax on consumers. Obama’s approach to energy is tantamount to rationing our petroleum resources.
Oil production creates high-paying jobs, both entry-level and those with experience. At the same time, greater domestic production would mean that we are sending fewer dollar overseas. As WikiLeaks revealed, many of the oil producing gulf states that we buy our oil from are heavily funding terrorism. So President Obama’s misguided energy policies are a trifecta: they damage our economy, enrich our adversaries, and indirectly fund terrorists.
So why is Obama clinging to this dangerous policy? One can only conclude that for him, ideology trumps realty. It is really more important for him to be “green” and punish oil companies than to create jobs for ordinary Americans. So the next time you hear that Obama has failed to create any jobs, please correct them. Just ask oil workers in Tehran or Caracas. They’ll tell you he’s created them there.
Retrieved from:
http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2010/12/23/obama-is-creating-jobs-in-iran-venezuela-and-russia/
But Obama has already proven to be a job creator–overseas. Because of his continued anti-oil policies, he is pushing American producers away from expanding exploration and production here in the United States. By blocking offshore oil drilling and issuing fewer permits in those areas where drilling is already allowed, oil companies increasingly look overseas for production opportunities. And countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, couldn’t be happier. Why not? Oil prices are pushed higher and they are energy exporters. For energy importers like the United States, this is like an extra tax on consumers. Obama’s approach to energy is tantamount to rationing our petroleum resources.
Oil production creates high-paying jobs, both entry-level and those with experience. At the same time, greater domestic production would mean that we are sending fewer dollar overseas. As WikiLeaks revealed, many of the oil producing gulf states that we buy our oil from are heavily funding terrorism. So President Obama’s misguided energy policies are a trifecta: they damage our economy, enrich our adversaries, and indirectly fund terrorists.
So why is Obama clinging to this dangerous policy? One can only conclude that for him, ideology trumps realty. It is really more important for him to be “green” and punish oil companies than to create jobs for ordinary Americans. So the next time you hear that Obama has failed to create any jobs, please correct them. Just ask oil workers in Tehran or Caracas. They’ll tell you he’s created them there.
Retrieved from:
http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2010/12/23/obama-is-creating-jobs-in-iran-venezuela-and-russia/
Thursday, December 23, 2010
PROFANE PULPITS
By Coach Dave Daubenmire
December 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Profane -- to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt.
“Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.” -Zephaniah 3:4
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" -Jeremiah 5:31
For over six thousand years homosexuality was a crime. In 2003 the Supreme Court made it a civil right. This week, our “elected officials” opened the Pandora’s Box of sexual deviancy into the military.
If you haven’t read this spot-on analysis by Devvy Kidd on “The Queering of our Military” make time to do it now.
If you want an historical perspective on America’s treatment of sodomites over the years, this powerful lecture by Pastor Mark Trewhella is a must listen.
I urge you to forward both to all of your friends, and especially to your pastors!!!
Not one pastor in a hundred will dare to take this subject on. "Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary. THEY HAVE DONE VIOLENCE TO THE LAW."
Who has done violence to the law? Her priests and her prophets…that sissy standing before you Sunday after Sunday…preaching “God’s love” void of God’s judgment.
“The prophets prophesy falsely; and the priests bear rule by their means…and my people love to have it so.”
Look folks, I don’t care what your pastor preaches to you, God abhors homosexuality. He does not “hate the sin and love the sinner” as the prissy pastors love to puke at us. It is the sinner He casts into the fire, not the sin.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Most pastors are loving sinners straight into hell, forgetting that the lake of fire was God’s idea!
God’s law is protective in nature. Although there are those who love to harp on the “negative rights” of the Ten Commandments…THOU SHALL NOT…the truth is that the Law of God is loving.
What is the purpose of a mother telling a young child not to run into the street? Is it because Mom doesn’t want the child to have fun, or is it because Mom wants the child to live? Mom’s rules, like God’s rules, have the child’s best interests at heart.
When a father teaches a child not to engage in pre-marital sex is it because he doesn’t want the child to have fun, or is it because he doesn’t want to see anyone harmed? Why did God forbid fornication? Why did he abhor homosexuality? Sin has “collateral” damage.
Ask yourself this. How many people have died as a result of the “if it feels good do it” attitude that permeates society? “Bowel movement sex,” as Devvy so accurately calls it, is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Can we even imagine the medical costs associated with STD’s and AIDS in the military? Who will pay for this? Pardon the pun, but, bend over.
(You do know, don’t you, that AIDS began in the sodomite community. GRIDS… Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome was the original name before the diseases became infected with political correctness.) I wonder how many innocent people would be alive today if the truth had been told about sodomites and their “bowel movement sex?”
Pandora’s Sexual Box has now been opened. There will be no putting of the genie back into the bottle. Sexual anarchy has been loosed on America. If right and wrong become a matter of public opinion, based on what standard can any law be enforced?
Look, all men love sex. We were “born that way.” Why can’t I have sex with my daughter? Why can’t I have sex with children? Why can’t I have both a husband and a wife? How about multiples of both? Most men were born with a propensity for sexual promiscuity. Only the restraints of a common standard of right and wrong have prevented men from screwing like rabbits. Without that standard, “bowel-movement sex” becomes a civil right. Being “born that way” does not grant one the right to violate the “laws of nature.”
Unlike the other “sexual preferences” listed above “Bowel movement sex” is against the “laws of nature.” Sex with children is not against the “laws of nature”…we see it all the time in the animal world…but it is against the moral code of our culture. “Bowel movement sex” is not something a normal animal would do. In today’s military, however, this perversion is now normal.
“Gay pride.” We have lost our way in America. We are ashamed of what we should be proud of, and proud of that of which we should be ashamed.
And where are the pulpits in all of this? Instead of condemning the behavior, our pulpits want to “accept” them, “marry” them, “ordain” them, and compare their “struggle” to blacks. “Jesus loves blacks so he must love gays too!” Being black is not immoral. Inserting a penis into another man’s rectum is.
I get tired of defending myself when I take a position that aligns with God’s standard. I’ve been called everything but a white man…hatemonger...bigot…homophobe…intolerant…and I am sure that this commentary will unleash a new bevy of incoming hate-missiles from the tolerance crowd. So permit me to give the necessary disclaimer, I do not hate homosexuals.
But perhaps that is the wrong question to be asking. This issue is not what Coach Dave thinks…but what does God think. Does God love homosexuality? Is He proud of sodomites?
I always find it interesting when I read Revelation 21:8 that the first people the Scripture mentions as slated for the fire are the “fearful, and unbelieving,” along with “all liars.” Our pulpits are filled with such men.
They are too “fearful” to declare the Truth of God’s Word, too “unbelieving” to take Him at his Word, and to content to “lie” to themselves and others that God takes a live and let live approach to sin. A reading of Romans 1 shows it to be more along the lines of live and let die.
Being a pastor is a high calling…”to whom much is given, much is required”...but most have “polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.”
Sin, like a virus, spreads quickly if left unchecked. It is a silent killer more deadly than AIDS. The Gospel is the vaccine, designed by God to inoculate the world from its ravaging appetite. But sin has a new name. It is called “orientation”…a direction of thought…or interest…or inclination. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
I guess we were all “born that way.” That’s why we all need to be “born again.”
The pimps in today’s pulpits have profaned the Law of God. They bow to government and its Godless-judges. They preach a lawless-gospel that aligns with the anti-Christ church of tolerance and diversity. They are promoters of the non-offensive gospel mandated by Caesar and his underlings.
Their profane Gospel finds favor with Caesar, while the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God bend to man-pleasing magistrates mandating man-pleasing morality. Admit it, calling a sodomite a sodomite makes you uneasy. God would never do anything so harsh…
So Pastor, as you stand in your pulpit, clinging to your retirement and your reputation, does the government fear you or do you fear the government?
How much more authority of Scripture are you willing to cede to Caesar?
“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” -Isaiah 58.
Homosexuality is sin. The Bible calls those who practice it sodomites. They are not “gay,” they are perverted. Do you have the courage to say it publicly? I just did.
You will serve the one you fear.
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave219.htm
December 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Profane -- to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt.
“Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.” -Zephaniah 3:4
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" -Jeremiah 5:31
For over six thousand years homosexuality was a crime. In 2003 the Supreme Court made it a civil right. This week, our “elected officials” opened the Pandora’s Box of sexual deviancy into the military.
If you haven’t read this spot-on analysis by Devvy Kidd on “The Queering of our Military” make time to do it now.
If you want an historical perspective on America’s treatment of sodomites over the years, this powerful lecture by Pastor Mark Trewhella is a must listen.
I urge you to forward both to all of your friends, and especially to your pastors!!!
Not one pastor in a hundred will dare to take this subject on. "Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary. THEY HAVE DONE VIOLENCE TO THE LAW."
Who has done violence to the law? Her priests and her prophets…that sissy standing before you Sunday after Sunday…preaching “God’s love” void of God’s judgment.
“The prophets prophesy falsely; and the priests bear rule by their means…and my people love to have it so.”
Look folks, I don’t care what your pastor preaches to you, God abhors homosexuality. He does not “hate the sin and love the sinner” as the prissy pastors love to puke at us. It is the sinner He casts into the fire, not the sin.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Most pastors are loving sinners straight into hell, forgetting that the lake of fire was God’s idea!
God’s law is protective in nature. Although there are those who love to harp on the “negative rights” of the Ten Commandments…THOU SHALL NOT…the truth is that the Law of God is loving.
What is the purpose of a mother telling a young child not to run into the street? Is it because Mom doesn’t want the child to have fun, or is it because Mom wants the child to live? Mom’s rules, like God’s rules, have the child’s best interests at heart.
When a father teaches a child not to engage in pre-marital sex is it because he doesn’t want the child to have fun, or is it because he doesn’t want to see anyone harmed? Why did God forbid fornication? Why did he abhor homosexuality? Sin has “collateral” damage.
Ask yourself this. How many people have died as a result of the “if it feels good do it” attitude that permeates society? “Bowel movement sex,” as Devvy so accurately calls it, is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Can we even imagine the medical costs associated with STD’s and AIDS in the military? Who will pay for this? Pardon the pun, but, bend over.
(You do know, don’t you, that AIDS began in the sodomite community. GRIDS… Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome was the original name before the diseases became infected with political correctness.) I wonder how many innocent people would be alive today if the truth had been told about sodomites and their “bowel movement sex?”
Pandora’s Sexual Box has now been opened. There will be no putting of the genie back into the bottle. Sexual anarchy has been loosed on America. If right and wrong become a matter of public opinion, based on what standard can any law be enforced?
Look, all men love sex. We were “born that way.” Why can’t I have sex with my daughter? Why can’t I have sex with children? Why can’t I have both a husband and a wife? How about multiples of both? Most men were born with a propensity for sexual promiscuity. Only the restraints of a common standard of right and wrong have prevented men from screwing like rabbits. Without that standard, “bowel-movement sex” becomes a civil right. Being “born that way” does not grant one the right to violate the “laws of nature.”
Unlike the other “sexual preferences” listed above “Bowel movement sex” is against the “laws of nature.” Sex with children is not against the “laws of nature”…we see it all the time in the animal world…but it is against the moral code of our culture. “Bowel movement sex” is not something a normal animal would do. In today’s military, however, this perversion is now normal.
“Gay pride.” We have lost our way in America. We are ashamed of what we should be proud of, and proud of that of which we should be ashamed.
And where are the pulpits in all of this? Instead of condemning the behavior, our pulpits want to “accept” them, “marry” them, “ordain” them, and compare their “struggle” to blacks. “Jesus loves blacks so he must love gays too!” Being black is not immoral. Inserting a penis into another man’s rectum is.
I get tired of defending myself when I take a position that aligns with God’s standard. I’ve been called everything but a white man…hatemonger...bigot…homophobe…intolerant…and I am sure that this commentary will unleash a new bevy of incoming hate-missiles from the tolerance crowd. So permit me to give the necessary disclaimer, I do not hate homosexuals.
But perhaps that is the wrong question to be asking. This issue is not what Coach Dave thinks…but what does God think. Does God love homosexuality? Is He proud of sodomites?
I always find it interesting when I read Revelation 21:8 that the first people the Scripture mentions as slated for the fire are the “fearful, and unbelieving,” along with “all liars.” Our pulpits are filled with such men.
They are too “fearful” to declare the Truth of God’s Word, too “unbelieving” to take Him at his Word, and to content to “lie” to themselves and others that God takes a live and let live approach to sin. A reading of Romans 1 shows it to be more along the lines of live and let die.
Being a pastor is a high calling…”to whom much is given, much is required”...but most have “polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.”
Sin, like a virus, spreads quickly if left unchecked. It is a silent killer more deadly than AIDS. The Gospel is the vaccine, designed by God to inoculate the world from its ravaging appetite. But sin has a new name. It is called “orientation”…a direction of thought…or interest…or inclination. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
I guess we were all “born that way.” That’s why we all need to be “born again.”
The pimps in today’s pulpits have profaned the Law of God. They bow to government and its Godless-judges. They preach a lawless-gospel that aligns with the anti-Christ church of tolerance and diversity. They are promoters of the non-offensive gospel mandated by Caesar and his underlings.
Their profane Gospel finds favor with Caesar, while the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God bend to man-pleasing magistrates mandating man-pleasing morality. Admit it, calling a sodomite a sodomite makes you uneasy. God would never do anything so harsh…
So Pastor, as you stand in your pulpit, clinging to your retirement and your reputation, does the government fear you or do you fear the government?
How much more authority of Scripture are you willing to cede to Caesar?
“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” -Isaiah 58.
Homosexuality is sin. The Bible calls those who practice it sodomites. They are not “gay,” they are perverted. Do you have the courage to say it publicly? I just did.
You will serve the one you fear.
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave219.htm
THE QUEERING OF OUR MILITARY AND GOD'S WRATH
[The U.S. Military has now been turned into a global force for the promotion of homosexuality (perversity)]
THE QUEERING OF OUR MILITARY AND GOD'S WRATH
By: Devvy
December 21, 2010
© 2010 - NewsWithViews.com
WARNING - GRAPHIC LANGUAGE
December 18, 2010, another black day for a once moral country. The unlawfully seated U.S. Senate, led by degenerates, Joe Libermann and Hooter Harry Reid, voted to sanction bowel movement sex between men by repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by morally bankrupt, Bill Clinton. Are you offended by my use of bowel movement sex? Just what is it people think "gay" men do? [edited]
Politically correct excuses were parroted by so called conservative Republicans, i.e., adulterer, Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]: "Ensign said in a statement that he opposed the procedural vote earlier because Democrats would not allow consideration of amendments.
"[I]t is my firm belief that any American wishing to fight and potentially die for this great country ought to be able to do so regardless of sexual orientation," the Nevada Republican said. "These fine individuals should not have to hide who they are." Conservatives in Massachusetts tried to warn their fellow Republicans about Scott Brown, but voters didn't listen. I wasn't surprised to find out Libertarian - Republican, Ron Paul voted for it in the house along with 14 other Republicans like sodomite David Drier.
No surprise Susan Collins (Maine, Olympia Snowe (Maine), Lisa Murkowski, retiring George Voinovich (Ohio) and freshman Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted to promote and condone filth. Their past voting records reflect wallowing in the sewer of political correctness for years.
Outright lies were used in selling out our military: 'The REAL Pentagon Poll: 91% reject open homosexual service
Let me point out a few things I used when calling the outlaws who "serve" me in Congress:
1. Serving in the military is NOT a constitutional right.
We have an all voluntary military force. No one is forced to enlist. Sexual deviants knew DOD policy when they signed up. If they don't like the policy, don't enlist or get out. You don't destroy the entire military to satisfy a small group of sexual deviants with big mouths who buy the favors of the prostitutes in Congress with campaign donations.
2. My husband is a retired Army Colonel. Military bases are family oriented. Do we want children of families to see queers kissing, holding hands or worse? A large number of military bases have child care centers. Those children will now see sin their little innocent lives should not be exposed to; yeah, it will happen "by accident."
3. The military is the ideal place for sodomites and lesbians to recruit. All that young meat to gaze upon in the showers and living quarters. Think enlisted or officers who are queer won't use their rank to get what they want? Just you wait.
With a dead economy and no jobs, it's likely a lot of Christian men and women will remain in service because they need a job or are a year or two away from full retirement with benefits. The evil doers know this and don't care. We know what the agenda is: destroy the moral fabric of this country. Destroy the traditional family: a heterosexual mother and father. Force acceptance of sin and filth by Christians in our military or face the consequences.
4. Because I do a lot of research, our military has increasing problems with suicide, females in the military and domestic violence. A new set of problems has just been added. Our soldiers will now be forced to undergo indoctrination to flush their value system to accept queers as normal or there will be no promotions.
Yes, I use the word queer. (We're queer, we're here) I refuse to call them "gays." Using the word 'gay' to describe those who engage in sodomy is nothing more than clever marketing to distract people from what a homosexual does with another man. The word 'gay' is used to present an uplifting feeling instead of picturing what sodomites and lesbians do between the sheets and openly on the streets. "Alternative lifestyles" is more clever word smithing to take people's attention away from the act of sodomy and lesbian sex. Here, go take a look at "they're just like us" --- sodomites and lesbians.
The same applies to the clever marketing term: sexual orientation. There isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to support humans are born queer. Many years ago in the State of Colorado, courageous Americans decided to do something about all the special privileges and status being given to sexual deviants who had the gall to compare "homosexual rights" to the plight of black Americans during the civil rights era. In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 to their state constitution. This Amendment (later overturned by the 'gods' who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court), was to ensure that no one received preferential treatment, that all are equal under the law. The voice of the people was once again tossed into the ocean of political correctness and the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual, et al, community rejoiced.
An interesting thing happened while this battle was raging on in Colorado. I lived there during this time and watched first hand how words are used to deceive and manipulate. Up until the time of the vote, the homosexual, et al, community referred to their perversions as "sexual preference." It was the constant mantra that we heard on the stupid tube and read in leftist newspapers throughout the state for almost a year during the Amendment 2 battle.
Those seeking to stop this onslaught by the homosexual crowd continually reminded everyone that these people preferred their deviant sexual practices. The key word here being preferred. When the pro homosexual bunch suddenly realized they were losing the battle in the court of public opinion, America was introduced to a new label, "sexual orientation."
The homosexual crowd figured they could hoodwink most people into believing that all of a sudden, their sexual appetites were no longer a matter of preference, but rather "orientation." How clever and what nonsense. "...former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor did not deny that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle..." in Lawrence v Texas. Source: How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, pg 26. What the degenerate animals in the U.S. Senate unleashed on us is just the first step. Next will be bi-sexuals, transgenders and those who practice bestiality claiming it's their right to openly serve in the military.
Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships
"Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
"The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]
Male Homosexuals
"Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
"The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
"Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
"A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
5. For large numbers of Christian men and women serving in the military, not only do they find it abhorrent to serve with sexual deviants, I've received a lot of email from active duty who are terrified of being injured because of blood tainted with AIDS. They should be very worried if they are deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting in those illegal, grotesque invasions. We know AIDS has an incubation period of up to ten years. Getting a blood transfusion can now mean a death sentence.
6. Bowel movement sex between men is neither natural nor healthy. Let me be frank and graphic here because you and I will now pay for such filth with our tax dollars. Sodomites will continue to enlist and down the line, their medical bills from engaging in sodomy will skyrocket. Those who contract AIDS/HIV will get those enormously expensive cocktail drugs paid for by Christians because those soldiers chose to have dangerous sex.
[edited] We the taxpayers will end up paying for all their lavender diseases. For those who have been influenced by "superstars" such as Cher and Elton John to "accept those of the gay lifestyle," [edited] For further information, see: The Health Risks of Gay Sex and Sexually transmitted disease among homosexuals.
Do you suppose their diapers will fit under uniforms?
How about lesbians? "Compared to heterosexual women, lesbians appear to have higher rates of smoking, obesity and alcohol use." [edited]
When God created man and woman, do you really think he would have intentionally programmed humans to engage in behavior that brings such pain, misery and death?
God's wrath
Last, but more important than all the facts above, God calls sodomy an abomination. A sin.
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." -- Leviticus 20:13:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."-- Romans 1:26-27:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God." -- I Corinthians 6:9:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching." -- I Timothy 1:9-10:
According to sexual deviants and their supporters, the words above, God's word as written in the King James Bible, really means it's okay for men to have sex with each and the same for women!
Romans 1:26-32. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Think about that as you support "gays".
83% of the American people identify themselves as Christians, yet they continue to vote morally dead incumbents back into office who vote to glorify and sanction the filth of sodomy. They vote to slap God in the face. How do those Christians justify their actions while they profess to believe the Bible is the word of God? Because they want to be tolerant of politically correct behavior? I'm sure God will be real understanding on judgment day.
Blame the churches
Where are the churches in this country? Well, many of them have become folk singing Sunday events. Lots of boogie-woogie and "Christian music" every Sunday at those social meetings, er, church. Mega churches run by millionaires like Joel Osteen are nothing more than feel good sessions. Yes, I've taken the time to watch Osteen on Sunday via the tv. Even fifteen minutes made me want to take a hot shower. Net worth: $40 million bux, pass the plate! I find Rick Warren even slimier. His net worth is a paltry $14 million bux, so pass the plate twice. Some Christian denominations have told God to buzz off and openly accept sodomites and lesbians into their churches as individuals to be respected, tolerated. Their pastors or reverends are also sexual deviants. Slap God in the face.
The majority of America's churches who are shackled by the IRS as tax exempt entities have remained silent on this issue and sin. Shame on them for their cowardice. Do they think God won't notice? Do preachers, reverends and other clergy really believe God will forgive their sin of leading their flocks astray by condoning moral depravity and remaining silent while political animals run our country into Hell? Shame on them for spending time in front of the pulpit cowering as they duck their duty and obligation to remind those who sit before them that actions have consequences and that sin in God's eyes is to be taken seriously.
A master of eloquent writing and a vocabulary beyond my ability, Jim Schwiesow, wrote in one of his columns:
"At the risk of offending the true believers who sit among the nominal Christians in the denominational churches I submit that a predominant number of these churches today abet the heathen in the suppression of the teachings of Christ. When the preachers of these congregations avoid the hard lessons of scripture and displace, avoid, or eliminate the Gospel and replace it with humanism and the secular doctrines of social justice they fall to the desires of the powers and principalities in high places. "
Do the people of this country really believe God will continue to reward this nation with his blessings when the people have become as debased and filthy as whores on a street corner? Absolutely not.
"The Bible was given to mankind for his instruction and we ignore it at our peril. Men can laugh at it, scoff at and denigrate the words thereof and denounce it as myth and superstitious nonsense, but that will not erase any of God's works, it will not circumvent His control over all of nature and current events nor will it prevent every last prophetic word of the Bible from being carried out. God holds the wisdom of men in derision; man's every prideful worldly self-centered work is as foolishness to Him..
Jim Schwiesow, Beyond a Fiery Gate Lies Our Destiny:
"God's wrath is poised to be poured out upon this world with a fullness of fury and the United States will be the first to fall, while its English speaking allies will either fall simultaneously or succumb to similar judgment in quick succession. This nation has fallen into a depth of depravity unparalleled in our history. It is not necessary to enumerate our sins they are well known. The perverseness of the minds of the people sickens the soul. Government supported vice is rampant, and the people are of a corrupt mind and their hearts are continually fixed on evil. The killing of millions of babies is sanctioned and protected by government decree, as is sexual perversion and various other vices."
Personally, I have been around sodomites. They are nice people, but I will not shake their hand because I know where its been. If I suspect a waiter at a restaurant is queer, I quietly ask to be seated someplace else in the restaurant. If that request isn't granted, I simply leave. I will not give my consumer dollars to companies like Campbell's because they financially support sin. I certainly don't hate sexual deviants. I pity them because they have bought into the propaganda they're "born that way." I sincerely pray they will stop their destructive behavior and ask for God's forgiveness. Otherwise, in my personal belief system based on the word of God, they condemn their soul to Hell for eternity and eternity is a long, long time.
Now, it's not too late to stop this abomination according to Cliff Kincaid: The “procedural steps” that are part of the bill give the new conservative-controlled House an opportunity to derail the repeal policy." We shall see what this "new" conservative Outlaw Congress does next month. You can still make your voice heard.
Links and recommended reading:
1 The Gay Gene Hoax
2 Marines Don't Want to Bunk With Gays - General
3 3 military chiefs oppose 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
4 How supporters of bowel movement sex voted - roll call
5 This is a profoundly radical experiment with the military'
6 Marine Corps chief: 'Gays' could be deadly 'distraction'
List of corporations who condone and support bowel movement sex
The feminization of our military was the first step in destroying it. Highly recommend you read this book: Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster by Brian Mitchell
Sexual abuse is the primary causes of post-traumatic stress disorder among female service members
Highly recommend you read this short book to understand how international law played a part in Lawrence v Texas, furthering the "acceptance" of sodomy:
How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira
My Genes Made Me Do It
Roll call vote in the House for sexual deviants
Nothing but lies about active duty military being "okay" serving with sexual deviants:
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves."
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd490.htm
THE QUEERING OF OUR MILITARY AND GOD'S WRATH
By: Devvy
December 21, 2010
© 2010 - NewsWithViews.com
WARNING - GRAPHIC LANGUAGE
December 18, 2010, another black day for a once moral country. The unlawfully seated U.S. Senate, led by degenerates, Joe Libermann and Hooter Harry Reid, voted to sanction bowel movement sex between men by repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by morally bankrupt, Bill Clinton. Are you offended by my use of bowel movement sex? Just what is it people think "gay" men do? [edited]
Politically correct excuses were parroted by so called conservative Republicans, i.e., adulterer, Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]: "Ensign said in a statement that he opposed the procedural vote earlier because Democrats would not allow consideration of amendments.
"[I]t is my firm belief that any American wishing to fight and potentially die for this great country ought to be able to do so regardless of sexual orientation," the Nevada Republican said. "These fine individuals should not have to hide who they are." Conservatives in Massachusetts tried to warn their fellow Republicans about Scott Brown, but voters didn't listen. I wasn't surprised to find out Libertarian - Republican, Ron Paul voted for it in the house along with 14 other Republicans like sodomite David Drier.
No surprise Susan Collins (Maine, Olympia Snowe (Maine), Lisa Murkowski, retiring George Voinovich (Ohio) and freshman Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted to promote and condone filth. Their past voting records reflect wallowing in the sewer of political correctness for years.
Outright lies were used in selling out our military: 'The REAL Pentagon Poll: 91% reject open homosexual service
Let me point out a few things I used when calling the outlaws who "serve" me in Congress:
1. Serving in the military is NOT a constitutional right.
We have an all voluntary military force. No one is forced to enlist. Sexual deviants knew DOD policy when they signed up. If they don't like the policy, don't enlist or get out. You don't destroy the entire military to satisfy a small group of sexual deviants with big mouths who buy the favors of the prostitutes in Congress with campaign donations.
2. My husband is a retired Army Colonel. Military bases are family oriented. Do we want children of families to see queers kissing, holding hands or worse? A large number of military bases have child care centers. Those children will now see sin their little innocent lives should not be exposed to; yeah, it will happen "by accident."
3. The military is the ideal place for sodomites and lesbians to recruit. All that young meat to gaze upon in the showers and living quarters. Think enlisted or officers who are queer won't use their rank to get what they want? Just you wait.
With a dead economy and no jobs, it's likely a lot of Christian men and women will remain in service because they need a job or are a year or two away from full retirement with benefits. The evil doers know this and don't care. We know what the agenda is: destroy the moral fabric of this country. Destroy the traditional family: a heterosexual mother and father. Force acceptance of sin and filth by Christians in our military or face the consequences.
4. Because I do a lot of research, our military has increasing problems with suicide, females in the military and domestic violence. A new set of problems has just been added. Our soldiers will now be forced to undergo indoctrination to flush their value system to accept queers as normal or there will be no promotions.
Yes, I use the word queer. (We're queer, we're here) I refuse to call them "gays." Using the word 'gay' to describe those who engage in sodomy is nothing more than clever marketing to distract people from what a homosexual does with another man. The word 'gay' is used to present an uplifting feeling instead of picturing what sodomites and lesbians do between the sheets and openly on the streets. "Alternative lifestyles" is more clever word smithing to take people's attention away from the act of sodomy and lesbian sex. Here, go take a look at "they're just like us" --- sodomites and lesbians.
The same applies to the clever marketing term: sexual orientation. There isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to support humans are born queer. Many years ago in the State of Colorado, courageous Americans decided to do something about all the special privileges and status being given to sexual deviants who had the gall to compare "homosexual rights" to the plight of black Americans during the civil rights era. In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 to their state constitution. This Amendment (later overturned by the 'gods' who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court), was to ensure that no one received preferential treatment, that all are equal under the law. The voice of the people was once again tossed into the ocean of political correctness and the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual, et al, community rejoiced.
An interesting thing happened while this battle was raging on in Colorado. I lived there during this time and watched first hand how words are used to deceive and manipulate. Up until the time of the vote, the homosexual, et al, community referred to their perversions as "sexual preference." It was the constant mantra that we heard on the stupid tube and read in leftist newspapers throughout the state for almost a year during the Amendment 2 battle.
Those seeking to stop this onslaught by the homosexual crowd continually reminded everyone that these people preferred their deviant sexual practices. The key word here being preferred. When the pro homosexual bunch suddenly realized they were losing the battle in the court of public opinion, America was introduced to a new label, "sexual orientation."
The homosexual crowd figured they could hoodwink most people into believing that all of a sudden, their sexual appetites were no longer a matter of preference, but rather "orientation." How clever and what nonsense. "...former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor did not deny that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle..." in Lawrence v Texas. Source: How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, pg 26. What the degenerate animals in the U.S. Senate unleashed on us is just the first step. Next will be bi-sexuals, transgenders and those who practice bestiality claiming it's their right to openly serve in the military.
Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships
"Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
"The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]
Male Homosexuals
"Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
"The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
"Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
"A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
5. For large numbers of Christian men and women serving in the military, not only do they find it abhorrent to serve with sexual deviants, I've received a lot of email from active duty who are terrified of being injured because of blood tainted with AIDS. They should be very worried if they are deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting in those illegal, grotesque invasions. We know AIDS has an incubation period of up to ten years. Getting a blood transfusion can now mean a death sentence.
6. Bowel movement sex between men is neither natural nor healthy. Let me be frank and graphic here because you and I will now pay for such filth with our tax dollars. Sodomites will continue to enlist and down the line, their medical bills from engaging in sodomy will skyrocket. Those who contract AIDS/HIV will get those enormously expensive cocktail drugs paid for by Christians because those soldiers chose to have dangerous sex.
[edited] We the taxpayers will end up paying for all their lavender diseases. For those who have been influenced by "superstars" such as Cher and Elton John to "accept those of the gay lifestyle," [edited] For further information, see: The Health Risks of Gay Sex and Sexually transmitted disease among homosexuals.
Do you suppose their diapers will fit under uniforms?
How about lesbians? "Compared to heterosexual women, lesbians appear to have higher rates of smoking, obesity and alcohol use." [edited]
When God created man and woman, do you really think he would have intentionally programmed humans to engage in behavior that brings such pain, misery and death?
God's wrath
Last, but more important than all the facts above, God calls sodomy an abomination. A sin.
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." -- Leviticus 20:13:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."-- Romans 1:26-27:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God." -- I Corinthians 6:9:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching." -- I Timothy 1:9-10:
According to sexual deviants and their supporters, the words above, God's word as written in the King James Bible, really means it's okay for men to have sex with each and the same for women!
Romans 1:26-32. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Think about that as you support "gays".
83% of the American people identify themselves as Christians, yet they continue to vote morally dead incumbents back into office who vote to glorify and sanction the filth of sodomy. They vote to slap God in the face. How do those Christians justify their actions while they profess to believe the Bible is the word of God? Because they want to be tolerant of politically correct behavior? I'm sure God will be real understanding on judgment day.
Blame the churches
Where are the churches in this country? Well, many of them have become folk singing Sunday events. Lots of boogie-woogie and "Christian music" every Sunday at those social meetings, er, church. Mega churches run by millionaires like Joel Osteen are nothing more than feel good sessions. Yes, I've taken the time to watch Osteen on Sunday via the tv. Even fifteen minutes made me want to take a hot shower. Net worth: $40 million bux, pass the plate! I find Rick Warren even slimier. His net worth is a paltry $14 million bux, so pass the plate twice. Some Christian denominations have told God to buzz off and openly accept sodomites and lesbians into their churches as individuals to be respected, tolerated. Their pastors or reverends are also sexual deviants. Slap God in the face.
The majority of America's churches who are shackled by the IRS as tax exempt entities have remained silent on this issue and sin. Shame on them for their cowardice. Do they think God won't notice? Do preachers, reverends and other clergy really believe God will forgive their sin of leading their flocks astray by condoning moral depravity and remaining silent while political animals run our country into Hell? Shame on them for spending time in front of the pulpit cowering as they duck their duty and obligation to remind those who sit before them that actions have consequences and that sin in God's eyes is to be taken seriously.
A master of eloquent writing and a vocabulary beyond my ability, Jim Schwiesow, wrote in one of his columns:
"At the risk of offending the true believers who sit among the nominal Christians in the denominational churches I submit that a predominant number of these churches today abet the heathen in the suppression of the teachings of Christ. When the preachers of these congregations avoid the hard lessons of scripture and displace, avoid, or eliminate the Gospel and replace it with humanism and the secular doctrines of social justice they fall to the desires of the powers and principalities in high places. "
Do the people of this country really believe God will continue to reward this nation with his blessings when the people have become as debased and filthy as whores on a street corner? Absolutely not.
"The Bible was given to mankind for his instruction and we ignore it at our peril. Men can laugh at it, scoff at and denigrate the words thereof and denounce it as myth and superstitious nonsense, but that will not erase any of God's works, it will not circumvent His control over all of nature and current events nor will it prevent every last prophetic word of the Bible from being carried out. God holds the wisdom of men in derision; man's every prideful worldly self-centered work is as foolishness to Him..
Jim Schwiesow, Beyond a Fiery Gate Lies Our Destiny:
"God's wrath is poised to be poured out upon this world with a fullness of fury and the United States will be the first to fall, while its English speaking allies will either fall simultaneously or succumb to similar judgment in quick succession. This nation has fallen into a depth of depravity unparalleled in our history. It is not necessary to enumerate our sins they are well known. The perverseness of the minds of the people sickens the soul. Government supported vice is rampant, and the people are of a corrupt mind and their hearts are continually fixed on evil. The killing of millions of babies is sanctioned and protected by government decree, as is sexual perversion and various other vices."
Personally, I have been around sodomites. They are nice people, but I will not shake their hand because I know where its been. If I suspect a waiter at a restaurant is queer, I quietly ask to be seated someplace else in the restaurant. If that request isn't granted, I simply leave. I will not give my consumer dollars to companies like Campbell's because they financially support sin. I certainly don't hate sexual deviants. I pity them because they have bought into the propaganda they're "born that way." I sincerely pray they will stop their destructive behavior and ask for God's forgiveness. Otherwise, in my personal belief system based on the word of God, they condemn their soul to Hell for eternity and eternity is a long, long time.
Now, it's not too late to stop this abomination according to Cliff Kincaid: The “procedural steps” that are part of the bill give the new conservative-controlled House an opportunity to derail the repeal policy." We shall see what this "new" conservative Outlaw Congress does next month. You can still make your voice heard.
Links and recommended reading:
1 The Gay Gene Hoax
2 Marines Don't Want to Bunk With Gays - General
3 3 military chiefs oppose 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
4 How supporters of bowel movement sex voted - roll call
5 This is a profoundly radical experiment with the military'
6 Marine Corps chief: 'Gays' could be deadly 'distraction'
List of corporations who condone and support bowel movement sex
The feminization of our military was the first step in destroying it. Highly recommend you read this book: Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster by Brian Mitchell
Sexual abuse is the primary causes of post-traumatic stress disorder among female service members
Highly recommend you read this short book to understand how international law played a part in Lawrence v Texas, furthering the "acceptance" of sodomy:
How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira
My Genes Made Me Do It
Roll call vote in the House for sexual deviants
Nothing but lies about active duty military being "okay" serving with sexual deviants:
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves."
Retrieved from:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd490.htm
91% reject open homosexual service
The REAL Pentagon Poll: 91% reject open homosexual service
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and here's his analysis:
"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian, 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed effect on unit's performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence.]
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. [One half million troops will QUIT early, destroying national security.]
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. [Destroying recruiting efforts.]
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact....9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 70% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.
"In summary, the real stats prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will."
Retiring Marine Commandant General James Conway just told Fox News that "90 to 95 percent of the Marines" are against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, citing impromptu surveys he had conducted by a "show of hands" at town hall meetings.
Sen. John McCain told CNN the troop poll was biased for homosexuals: "it should have asked whether a policy change was the right thing to do, rather than how it should be implemented...I want to know the effect on battle effectiveness and morale, not on how best to implement a change in policy...I don't think that's a lot to ask when we have our young men and women out there serving and fighting, and tragically some of them dying."
The homosexual newspaper Washington Blade is boasting of a claim by Sen. Joseph Liberman (I-CT) who said "I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process." Lieberman revealed some private conversations he's had with Republican Senators Susan Collins (RINO-ME) and Richard Lugar (RINO-IN), and unnamed "other" Republicans [we list them below] whom he quoted as saying they "would be open to moving forward with...repeal provided there’s an 'open amendment process' in bringing the bill to the floor." [In other words, they'll sell out their principles for homosexual pork money.] I count 57, he counts 60, we're in a dogfight.
The new Commandant of the Marine Corps, 4-star General James F. Amos, effectively asked YOU to help his Marines last week, when he advised Senators to support Senator McCain's filibuster of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and to keep open homosexual aggression out of our military.
"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," said General Amos. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness." In other words, repealing Don't Ask will cost lives in battle.
Meanwhile the New York Times revealed Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) new strategy to force the homosexual agenda through this lame-duck Senate: "Mr. Reid could try to bring the defense bill to the floor under an open amendment process, a move that Republicans presumably would not block but that would mean committing a large block of time to debate. In that case, opponents of repeal would not be able to pass an amendment stripping it out of the bill." In other words, don't believe the liberal press reports that Reid can't get this done....they are closer than you think, so we must continue this fight.
More than 60 retired military chaplains have written President Obama, requesting he not repeal the 1993 Don't Ask, Don't Tell law that forbids open homosexuality in the military, because allowing open homosexuality will cause anti-Christian persecution of chaplains.
The letter was signed by retired military chaplains from various denominational backgrounds, including Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans.
After Don't Ask is repealed, "if chaplains answer such questions [during counseling sessions] according to the tenets of their faith, stating that homosexual relationships are sinful and harmful, then they run the risk of career-ending accusations of insubordination and discrimination," the letter said.
"By raising homosexual behavior to the same protected status as innate, innocuous characteristics like race and gender, the armed forces will cast the sincerely held religious beliefs of many chaplains and Service members as rank bigotry comparable to racism," the letter said.
"Put most simply, if the government normalizes homosexual behavior in the armed forces, many (if not most) chaplains will confront a profoundly difficult moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men," the letter said. "This forced choice must be faced, since orthodox Christianity -- which represents a significant percentage of religious belief in the armed forces -- does not affirm homosexual behavior.
Four Top Generals were ignored by Democrats who betrayed our troops. They said:
"This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation." Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff
"Serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years." Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff
"I think the current policy works... At this point...my best military advice to this Committee, to the [Defense] Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is." Gen. James Conway, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
"There has never really been an assessment of the force that serves....Equally important are the feelings of the families that support that force." Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations
WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?
Four reasons:
1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.
2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men? This fact alone would hurt recruiting.
3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield. Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.
4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.
Retrieved from:
http://www.prayinjesusname.org/
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and here's his analysis:
"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian, 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed effect on unit's performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence.]
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. [One half million troops will QUIT early, destroying national security.]
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. [Destroying recruiting efforts.]
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact....9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 70% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.
"In summary, the real stats prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will."
Retiring Marine Commandant General James Conway just told Fox News that "90 to 95 percent of the Marines" are against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, citing impromptu surveys he had conducted by a "show of hands" at town hall meetings.
Sen. John McCain told CNN the troop poll was biased for homosexuals: "it should have asked whether a policy change was the right thing to do, rather than how it should be implemented...I want to know the effect on battle effectiveness and morale, not on how best to implement a change in policy...I don't think that's a lot to ask when we have our young men and women out there serving and fighting, and tragically some of them dying."
The homosexual newspaper Washington Blade is boasting of a claim by Sen. Joseph Liberman (I-CT) who said "I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process." Lieberman revealed some private conversations he's had with Republican Senators Susan Collins (RINO-ME) and Richard Lugar (RINO-IN), and unnamed "other" Republicans [we list them below] whom he quoted as saying they "would be open to moving forward with...repeal provided there’s an 'open amendment process' in bringing the bill to the floor." [In other words, they'll sell out their principles for homosexual pork money.] I count 57, he counts 60, we're in a dogfight.
The new Commandant of the Marine Corps, 4-star General James F. Amos, effectively asked YOU to help his Marines last week, when he advised Senators to support Senator McCain's filibuster of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and to keep open homosexual aggression out of our military.
"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," said General Amos. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness." In other words, repealing Don't Ask will cost lives in battle.
Meanwhile the New York Times revealed Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) new strategy to force the homosexual agenda through this lame-duck Senate: "Mr. Reid could try to bring the defense bill to the floor under an open amendment process, a move that Republicans presumably would not block but that would mean committing a large block of time to debate. In that case, opponents of repeal would not be able to pass an amendment stripping it out of the bill." In other words, don't believe the liberal press reports that Reid can't get this done....they are closer than you think, so we must continue this fight.
More than 60 retired military chaplains have written President Obama, requesting he not repeal the 1993 Don't Ask, Don't Tell law that forbids open homosexuality in the military, because allowing open homosexuality will cause anti-Christian persecution of chaplains.
The letter was signed by retired military chaplains from various denominational backgrounds, including Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans.
After Don't Ask is repealed, "if chaplains answer such questions [during counseling sessions] according to the tenets of their faith, stating that homosexual relationships are sinful and harmful, then they run the risk of career-ending accusations of insubordination and discrimination," the letter said.
"By raising homosexual behavior to the same protected status as innate, innocuous characteristics like race and gender, the armed forces will cast the sincerely held religious beliefs of many chaplains and Service members as rank bigotry comparable to racism," the letter said.
"Put most simply, if the government normalizes homosexual behavior in the armed forces, many (if not most) chaplains will confront a profoundly difficult moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men," the letter said. "This forced choice must be faced, since orthodox Christianity -- which represents a significant percentage of religious belief in the armed forces -- does not affirm homosexual behavior.
Four Top Generals were ignored by Democrats who betrayed our troops. They said:
"This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation." Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff
"Serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years." Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff
"I think the current policy works... At this point...my best military advice to this Committee, to the [Defense] Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is." Gen. James Conway, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
"There has never really been an assessment of the force that serves....Equally important are the feelings of the families that support that force." Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations
WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?
Four reasons:
1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.
2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men? This fact alone would hurt recruiting.
3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield. Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.
4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.
Retrieved from:
http://www.prayinjesusname.org/
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tolerance Indoctrination: Round 2
Fellow Airmen,
Yesterday, the Senate passed HR 2965, a bill designed to repeal Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Once the President signs the bill into law, the Department of Defense will proceed to implement the change in a responsible, deliberate, and careful manner.
It is important to understand that the President’s signing of the new bill into law does not mean the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law will be repealed immediately. Instead, the Congressional language stipulates that repeal occurs 60 days after certification by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President that the necessary policies and regulations have been prepared to implement repeal and that repeal is consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. To repeat, the implementation and certification process will not happen immediately; it will take time. Meanwhile, the current law remains in effect. All Air Force members should conduct themselves accordingly.
In the coming days and weeks as we prepare for the repeal, we will provide [re-] education and training material to help all Airmen understand what is expected in a post-repeal environment.
Effective leadership, however, is key to implementing this change and success will rest on the shoulders of senior leaders like me, commanders, chiefs, first sergeants, and supervisors. The standards of conduct we expect of all Airmen will not change. Moreover, we will continue to treat each other, as members of the Air Force family, with dignity and respect.
I know each of you will approach this issue professionally and that you will continue to adhere faithfully to our core values of Integrity, Service before Self, and Excellence in all we do. By following our core values, we will successfully implement this change with the same unparalleled professionalism we have demonstrated with every transformation we have undertaken in peace and war.
NORTON A SCHWARTZ
Chief of Staff
Yesterday, the Senate passed HR 2965, a bill designed to repeal Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Once the President signs the bill into law, the Department of Defense will proceed to implement the change in a responsible, deliberate, and careful manner.
It is important to understand that the President’s signing of the new bill into law does not mean the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law will be repealed immediately. Instead, the Congressional language stipulates that repeal occurs 60 days after certification by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President that the necessary policies and regulations have been prepared to implement repeal and that repeal is consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. To repeat, the implementation and certification process will not happen immediately; it will take time. Meanwhile, the current law remains in effect. All Air Force members should conduct themselves accordingly.
In the coming days and weeks as we prepare for the repeal, we will provide [re-] education and training material to help all Airmen understand what is expected in a post-repeal environment.
Effective leadership, however, is key to implementing this change and success will rest on the shoulders of senior leaders like me, commanders, chiefs, first sergeants, and supervisors. The standards of conduct we expect of all Airmen will not change. Moreover, we will continue to treat each other, as members of the Air Force family, with dignity and respect.
I know each of you will approach this issue professionally and that you will continue to adhere faithfully to our core values of Integrity, Service before Self, and Excellence in all we do. By following our core values, we will successfully implement this change with the same unparalleled professionalism we have demonstrated with every transformation we have undertaken in peace and war.
NORTON A SCHWARTZ
Chief of Staff
Friday, December 17, 2010
Problems with the DoD report
“People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we
break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?”
Here are some findings of and problems with the DoD report:
23.7 % of surveyed Service members (38.1 % of Marines) said repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cause them to “leave [the military] sooner than I planned” or “think about leaving sooner than I had planned”;
44.3% of combat veterans (59.4% of Marines) said that having an open homosexual in their immediate unit in a field environment or out at sea would “Negatively” or “Very Negatively” affect their “unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission”; other survey data shows significant opposition within the ranks to the idea of homosexuals serving openly;
A major flaw of the Working Group report is the analogy it draws between Service members currently serving with men and women they know or suspect to be homosexuals (under DADT) — with being able to serve alongside “gays and lesbians” under a new regime in which homosexuality is out of the closet. Obviously, in the current situation, homosexual Service members are forced to be discrete. A new military culture tolerant of ”open and proud” homosexuality – including pro-homosexual “diversity” teachings, etc. — is simply not analogous to military life under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”;
The report punts on the question of military benefits for same-sex couples, but recognizes that this will be a future issue — and even notes that one of the big problems it will cause is that unmarried heterosexual soldiers will be upset if coupled “gay” soldiers get partner benefits while they are not allowed to get benefits for their hetero boyfriend or girlfriend. Thus, repealing the ban jars open a Pandora’s Box: surely gay activists will DEMAND partner benefits — using lawsuits if necessary — in the name of respect, equality, and “fairness”;
The report discusses respecting Service members’ “dignity” but rules out separate shower facilities and barracks for homosexuals – saying that doing so would “stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ’separate but equal’ for blacks prior to the 1960s” (p. 12). In other words, the Armed Forces is more concerned about offending ’gay and lesbian” members’ sensitivities than defending the privacy rights and dignity of normal, hetero Service men and women;
The above shows that in the name of paving the way for homosexuals’ alleged “civil rights,” the DoD is willing to abridge the civil rights of the normal majority of Service Members;
The above is also just one example of the DoD’s unfortunate penchant for linking the laudable and noble civil rights achievement of racially integrating black soldiers into the Armed Forces with the crusade to allow open homosexuals in the military — with their attendant sexual desires and behaviors. Racism is bigotry, and wrong. Moral opposition to homosexuality (widely and historically regarded as sinful) — and common-sense privacy concerns based on the self-described sexual desires of homosexual men and lesbians – are natural and acceptable. Applying the DoD report’s logic, men should be able to shower with women as long as they recognize that they cannot ogle them or make sexual advances on them in the shower (see p. 13: “to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations”);
The Working Group report admits that factoring in the sentiments it received in its review process (separate from its online survey) — through large “informational exchange forums” held on bases, smaller focus groups, online confidential communications, etc. — “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal of the current policy” (p. 49). Perhaps this helps explain why President Obama and Defense Sec. Gates did not task the Working Group with studying whether the troops wanted this pro-homosexual change, but rather how a Repeal would be implemented;
There are some excellent comments from Service members opposing Repeal in the DoD report, including this by a woman: “I do not have to shower or sleep with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel uncomfortable” changing and sleeping as I would if it wa a man in the room. i should not have to accept this.” (p. 50);
On DADT: “You don’t ask and you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke so don’t fix it.” (p. 52);
On using the military to promote immorality: “People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?” (p. 55)
In defending the right of religious and moral-minded Service members (and chaplains) to voice their opposition to homosexuality, the DoD report authors seem oblivious to the escalating legal and cultural conflict in the civilian world between homosexual activists’ demanding same-sex “rights” – and the freedom of Christians and other moral critics to live out their opposition to that behavior.
Surely this “values contest” will be transferred to a post-Repeal military — as many homosexual activists will put their “right” to be accepted above the freedom of Service members to disagree with homosexuality.
The report offers no coherent plan for how it will manage and balance that inherent conflict — and how it will avoid trampling over the rights of moral-minded Service-members in its zeal to enforce homosexual tolerance through (presumably mandatory) post-Repeal education and training programs.
Full Article:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/congress-christmas-lump-of-coal-for-troops-open-homosexuality.html#more-8356
Full Report:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?”
Here are some findings of and problems with the DoD report:
23.7 % of surveyed Service members (38.1 % of Marines) said repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cause them to “leave [the military] sooner than I planned” or “think about leaving sooner than I had planned”;
44.3% of combat veterans (59.4% of Marines) said that having an open homosexual in their immediate unit in a field environment or out at sea would “Negatively” or “Very Negatively” affect their “unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission”; other survey data shows significant opposition within the ranks to the idea of homosexuals serving openly;
A major flaw of the Working Group report is the analogy it draws between Service members currently serving with men and women they know or suspect to be homosexuals (under DADT) — with being able to serve alongside “gays and lesbians” under a new regime in which homosexuality is out of the closet. Obviously, in the current situation, homosexual Service members are forced to be discrete. A new military culture tolerant of ”open and proud” homosexuality – including pro-homosexual “diversity” teachings, etc. — is simply not analogous to military life under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”;
The report punts on the question of military benefits for same-sex couples, but recognizes that this will be a future issue — and even notes that one of the big problems it will cause is that unmarried heterosexual soldiers will be upset if coupled “gay” soldiers get partner benefits while they are not allowed to get benefits for their hetero boyfriend or girlfriend. Thus, repealing the ban jars open a Pandora’s Box: surely gay activists will DEMAND partner benefits — using lawsuits if necessary — in the name of respect, equality, and “fairness”;
The report discusses respecting Service members’ “dignity” but rules out separate shower facilities and barracks for homosexuals – saying that doing so would “stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ’separate but equal’ for blacks prior to the 1960s” (p. 12). In other words, the Armed Forces is more concerned about offending ’gay and lesbian” members’ sensitivities than defending the privacy rights and dignity of normal, hetero Service men and women;
The above shows that in the name of paving the way for homosexuals’ alleged “civil rights,” the DoD is willing to abridge the civil rights of the normal majority of Service Members;
The above is also just one example of the DoD’s unfortunate penchant for linking the laudable and noble civil rights achievement of racially integrating black soldiers into the Armed Forces with the crusade to allow open homosexuals in the military — with their attendant sexual desires and behaviors. Racism is bigotry, and wrong. Moral opposition to homosexuality (widely and historically regarded as sinful) — and common-sense privacy concerns based on the self-described sexual desires of homosexual men and lesbians – are natural and acceptable. Applying the DoD report’s logic, men should be able to shower with women as long as they recognize that they cannot ogle them or make sexual advances on them in the shower (see p. 13: “to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations”);
The Working Group report admits that factoring in the sentiments it received in its review process (separate from its online survey) — through large “informational exchange forums” held on bases, smaller focus groups, online confidential communications, etc. — “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal of the current policy” (p. 49). Perhaps this helps explain why President Obama and Defense Sec. Gates did not task the Working Group with studying whether the troops wanted this pro-homosexual change, but rather how a Repeal would be implemented;
There are some excellent comments from Service members opposing Repeal in the DoD report, including this by a woman: “I do not have to shower or sleep with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel uncomfortable” changing and sleeping as I would if it wa a man in the room. i should not have to accept this.” (p. 50);
On DADT: “You don’t ask and you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke so don’t fix it.” (p. 52);
On using the military to promote immorality: “People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?” (p. 55)
In defending the right of religious and moral-minded Service members (and chaplains) to voice their opposition to homosexuality, the DoD report authors seem oblivious to the escalating legal and cultural conflict in the civilian world between homosexual activists’ demanding same-sex “rights” – and the freedom of Christians and other moral critics to live out their opposition to that behavior.
Surely this “values contest” will be transferred to a post-Repeal military — as many homosexual activists will put their “right” to be accepted above the freedom of Service members to disagree with homosexuality.
The report offers no coherent plan for how it will manage and balance that inherent conflict — and how it will avoid trampling over the rights of moral-minded Service-members in its zeal to enforce homosexual tolerance through (presumably mandatory) post-Repeal education and training programs.
Full Article:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/congress-christmas-lump-of-coal-for-troops-open-homosexuality.html#more-8356
Full Report:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)