Month: May 2013

  • Homosexuality vs. the Bible


    What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

    Author: Matt Slick
    Source: Christian Apologetics and Resource Ministry

    homosexuality

    The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often, but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

    Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
    Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function 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 of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines the basis of God's created order where God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen.1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It also undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife, the God-ordained means of procreation. It is also dangerous to society.
    [Related Article: Is Homosexuality Dangerous?]

    Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it - and support it. This judgment is simple in that those who practice it are given over to their passions - which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.

    "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function 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 of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27).

    As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. They will not seek forgiveness. They will die in their sins and face God's holy condemnation. But, that isn't all. In addition to the judgment of being given over to their sin, those involved in it also promote it and condemn others who don't approve of their behavior.

    "...and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them," (Rom. 1:32).

    So, in their hearty approval of homosexuality they encourage others to be trapped in their sinfulness. This means they will reject Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell. We don't want this for anyone.

    Is this politically correct?

    No, the Bible's view of homosexuality is not politically correct. The politically correct view is that there is nothing wrong with two people just loving each other. 'Who are we Christians to judge them?' But, who are they to say what is morally right and wrong? Do they have an objective standard of morals that all people should follow? No, they don't. They appeal to things like "society" and "common sense" and "basic rights", etc., to promote their opinion of homosexual normality. Well, societies have been wrong before (Nazi Germany, anyone?). What is common sense to one person isn't necessarily common sense to another. And, basic rights? Well, we all have basic rights. But, the homosexuals want special rights. They want laws passed to protect their sexual behavior. They also want to redefine marriage and require everyone else to accept it! (Will the redefinition stop with homosexual marriage? Don't bet on it. Pedophiles are now asking for rights, too, and they are using the same arguments initially presented by the homosexual movement decades ago. [Related Article: Culture Creep])
    Think about it. The pro-homosexuals want laws passed to protect a behavior, a behavior! It is, after all, homoSEXuality. I want to know what right do the politically correct, pro-homosexual minority have to impose their values on the majority? What right do they have to condemn Christians, call us names, and be so very intolerant when say their behavior is a sin? They don't have sound arguments, but they do have liberal dogmatism pushed along by the momentum of the compromising media. They are successfully getting homosexuality promoted in schools, TV, and movies as "normal" and healthy. [Related Article: The Gay Takeover of America] As a result, their confidence and successes have pumped up their bravado so much that they even oppress those who oppose homosexuality - a fact blatantly ignored by the double-standard-liberal-media. But what are we to expect when dogmatism is king and all opposing views are condemned? The pro-homosexuals want everyone to think like them and approve of their "inborn sexual orientation" -- and if you don't? Well, then you're labeled a bigot! [Related Article: Examining the Homosexual Myths]
    Yep, they are so tolerant. That is why they want laws passed to ensure that their behavior of pairing a penis to a penis and a vagina to a vagina is protected as a special legal right even if the majority of people think otherwise! But hey, its okay if the minority pushes the majority around, redfines marriage, enforces loosening sexual morays, hides the condemning health statistics of homosexual behavior, and not-so-gently forces a change in society as a whole while they arrogantly yell, "This is normal!"

    ....really? It is?

    But, believe it or not, we Christians aren't judging them. We are informing them. God has declared that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't our preferences we're declaring. It is God's. I know. I know. Some will say the Bible isn't true, that it is archaic, sexist, homophobic...blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before. Kill the messanger and let's all jump into bed together and have our fun. Sorry, I'm not interested in freedom without responsibility and the resulting promiscuity and diseases that accompany the politically correct, sexual freedom of abberant liberal morality. Instead, I'll follow my Lord who calls all to repentance (Acts 17:30), myself included.

    What is the homosexual's hope?

    The only hope for the homosexual, and all people who break God's laws, is to realize that God is holy and he will rightfully judge all who have sinned against him by breaking his law (1 Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:8; 1 John 3:4). If he did not do this, then he would be approving of wrong doing. However, God is loving (1 John 4:8), patient (Rom. 2:4), wanting people to repent (Acts 17:30) and come a saving knowledge of him so they might be redeemed. What this means is that the sinner must turn to Christ, who is God the Son in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), who bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), died and physically rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4), and made it possible for sinners to be saved from the righteous judgment of God by faith in what Jesus did on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) and be forgiven of their sins (Eph. 2:8). This is done receiving Christ (John 1:12), by believing in him and his sacrifice that is a payment for our sins to God the Father. Like any sinner, the homosexual needs to repent, receive Christ by faith, and be saved from God's righteous judgment by trusting in Christ and the judgment that fell upon him on the cross. They need to pray and ask the Lord Jesus to save them.


    What should be the Christian's response to the Homosexual?

    Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken. Homosexuality is not a special practice that is exempt from God's righteous judgment simply because they claim they are born that way, or just want to be free to love, or say that it is normal. People are born with a tendency to lie. Does that make it okay? People want to love each other, but since when is "love" the determiner of what is right and wrong? If homosexuality is normal, then why is it practiced by so few? The great majority of people are heterosexual. Are they "more" normal?

    Please understand that I don't hate homosexuals. I wouldn't care if my neighbor is gay. But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God's Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners. We are all sinners and we need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).
    [Related Article: Is Jesus the Only Way?]

    We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person trapped in any other sin. This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.

    The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he (or she) is in rebellion. Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don't injure them. Don't hate them. Don't judge them. Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus. Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin.

    But, this does not mean that you are to approve of what they do. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation. Be kind to them. Be loving. And, when appropriate, share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • The New Barbarians

    The New Barbarians


    Author: Gary Horne
    Source: American Thinker - May 25, 2013

    mongolian_horde

    Recent abuses of power are a reminder that the barbarians are still with us, using the power of progressive government to punish anyone who dares oppose them. Barbarians have no regard for others and depend on plunder for their existence, as they have throughout history, taking from the productive by force.

    J. Bronowski described the barbarian Genghis Khan in The Ascent of Man:

    From AD 1200 to 1300 they made almost the last attempt to establish the supremacy of the robber who produces nothing and who, in his feckless way, comes to take from the peasant (who has nowhere to flee) the surplus that agriculture accumulates.


    Modern plunderers realize they don't need Genghis Khan's horsemen, and can use the power of the state in place of the sword. Known by various names, the left, liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, et al., these new plunderers are able to corrupt the civilized rule of law, enlisting government as plunderer-in-chief. The most aggressive American plunderer is the radicalized Democratic Party, whose hold on power depends on distributing the loot. This, of course, requires the use of force. There is no box to check on the tax return, "I agree to contribute to the Plunderer's Fund."

    The victim of plunder is not free, as Mark Levin remarks in Liberty and Tyranny:

    In the civil society, private property and liberty and inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.


    The American who has worked hard and earned his own surplus is no better off than the peasant confronted by a Mongol raid. At least the Mongols were honest. They came to plunder. They probably didn't tell the peasant, "We are just collecting your fair share." The new plunderers claim to be the champions of "the unfortunate" or "the poor," for who would dare to be against the unfortunate? Wealth redistribution by plunder is not compassion, and it is not charity. Charity is voluntary. Plunder is forbidden by all the major religions. The moral standard is not "Thou shalt steal for others," but "Thou shalt not steal."

    Yet the left claims to hold the moral high ground. The peasant who desires to keep his surplus is called "selfish," while the plunderers are called "compassionate." The moral commandment of the left is "Extort thy neighbor." Government operating under this commandment abandons the rule of law, pits one citizen against another, and destroys the civil society.

    In prehistoric times, the man with the biggest club won (and got the girl!). The barbarians continued the "biggest club society," wielding their swords against the helpless peasant. As societies became more civilized, plunder was more difficult. The Founders of the United States of America wrote the Constitution to protect the individual and his property against use of force. They abhorred the redistribution of wealth (plunder).

    James Madison said:

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort.... This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government, ....nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.


    And John Adams:

    Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.


    For 130 years, Americans were protected by their Constitution against plunder, until the 16th Amendment opened the door. The Progressives rushed in while the courts eventually left us defenseless. The resulting tax system allows government social engineering that would otherwise be prohibited, such as providing cover for the implementation of the unconstitutional ObamaCare. Those in power can reward friends (corruption) and persecute political opponents (tyranny). Abuses by the IRS are not so much about misuse of power, but that a government organization with such power exists.

    Unfortunately, Americans have gone along with this for a hundred years now. Today, to object to the power to plunder is to be vilified as some kind of unenlightened radical. The immoral concept that someone else has a "right" to the fruits of my labor, in essence turning me into a slave, has become entrenched into American life like a leech which cannot be burned off.

    Unlike my parents' generation, many feel no shame in accepting the plundered loot, as if they somehow deserve it. They vote for it, some even lie to receive it. They are blind to tyranny as long as the check comes. They would be insulted to be called thieves. But if not thieves, how would one describe beneficiaries of extorted money?

    Genghis Khan (after leaving his sword at the door) could give a speech to the Democratic Convention to rousing applause. After all, wasn't it "unfair" his people didn't have as much as the peasant they raided? Since they are the "unfortunates," don't they have a "right" to free health care, free legal advice, free food, and even free condoms? Should you not want to give it to them, the IRS will make you an offer you cannot refuse. The power to plunder has no place in a free society. The new barbarians have legislative titles, work in government agencies, and wear judicial robes. But underneath is the sword of Genghis Khan.

    barbarian_approved

  • 7 Secrets Of the Mainstream Media

    7 Things About The Mainstream Media That They Do Not Want You to Know

    Author: Michael Snyder
    Source: The Economic Collapse - 20 May 2013

    cnn_newsroom

    Have you ever wondered who controls the mainstream media? In America today, we are more "connected" than ever. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month, and we also spend countless hours watching movies, playing video games, listening to music, reading books and surfing the Internet. If someone could control the production of all of that media, that would make them immensely powerful. They would literally be in a position to tell people what to think. Well, what if I told you that there are just six enormous media conglomerates that combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans consume. Would that alarm you? It should alarm you. The truth is that our attitudes, opinions and beliefs are greatly shaped by what we allow into our minds. After all, they don't call it "programming" for no reason. Even those of us that realize that we are connected to "the matrix" probably greatly underestimate the tremendous influence that the media has over us. We live at a time when it is absolutely imperative to think for ourselves, but most Americans are being absolutely overwhelmed with information and seem more than content to let others do their thinking for them. Sadly, this is greatly contributing to the downfall of our society.

    And of course the mainstream media desperately does not want you to look at "the man behind the curtain". They just want you to stay plugged into the "programming" that they are feeding you without asking any questions.

    Fortunately, a growing minority of Americans are waking up and are starting to reject the mainstream media. An increasing number of people are beginning to recognize that the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and that it is promoting the agenda of the establishment.

    So why is the mainstream media so bad? The following are 7 things about the mainstream media that they do not want you to know...

    #1 The Mainstream Media Has Very Deep Ties To The Establishment

    Did you know that the president of CBS and the president of ABC both have brothers who are top officials in the Obama administration?

    The big news networks have developed an almost incestuous relationship with the federal government in recent years. But of course the same could be said of the relationship that the media has with the big corporations that own stock in their parent companies and that advertise on their networks.

    This is one of the reasons why we very rarely ever see any hard hitting stories on the big networks anymore. The flow of information through the corporate-dominated media is very tightly controlled, and there are a lot of gatekeepers that make sure that the "wrong stories" don't get put out to the public. As a result, many of the "big stories" that have come out in recent years were originally broken by the alternative media.

    [Related Article: Mainstream Media Ignores Mass Murder Trial]
    [Related Article: Corporate Media Ignores Gun Control Data]


    #2 The Mainstream Media Gets Things Wrong Very Frequently

    Even prominent members of the mainstream media admit that this is the case. For example, during a recent speech at Quinnipiac University CBS anchor Scott Pelley confessed that journalists in the mainstream media "are getting big stories wrong, over and over again"...

    "Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It's a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that's what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here."

    #3 The American Public Does Not Consider The Media To Be Very Trustworthy

    corporate_propaganda


    Trust in the mainstream media has definitely been slipping. In fact, a Gallup poll taken last year found that distrust of the media had reached an all-time high. According to that poll, 60 percent of Americans "have little or no trust" that the media is reporting the news accurately.

    A separate Rasmussen Reports survey found that only 6 percent of all Americans consider the news media to be "very trustworthy".

    Hopefully this trend will accelerate and a lot more people will stop trusting the media blindly.

    [Related Article: The Sovietized American Media]

    #4 The Mainstream Media And The Politicians That They Worship Hate The Fact That They Cannot Control Internet News Sites

    In the old days, the mainstream media had a virtual monopoly on the news. But these days, anyone with an Internet connection can put up a news site, and this is driving the establishment absolutely bonkers.

    For example, Barack Obama is known to have a great dislike for the alternative media. The following is from a recent WND article...

    NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd says President Obama was making it “clear” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend how he feels about the rise of Internet news sites like Politico, Buzzfeed and … well, WND.

    “He hates it.”

    Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning following Saturday night’s media, politics and celebrity soiree, Todd explained the president’s disdain for independent online news sources was showing during his speech.

    “It did seem … I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and then the serious stuff about the Internet, the rise of the Internet media and social media and all that stuff – he hates it, OK? He hates this part of the media,” Todd said. “He really thinks that the, sort of, the buzzification – this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.”


    #5 The Mainstream Media Is Extremely Liberal

    When it comes to politics, the mainstream media is far more liberal than the general population is.

    For example, one survey found that 41 percent of American voters believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while only 18 percent believe that the average reporter is more conservative than they are.

    A very disturbing UCLA study on media bias discovered that the vast majority of media outlets are "left of center"...

    Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

    And even MSNBC has confirmed the liberal bias of the media. According to MSNBC, mainstream journalists are far more likely to donate their own money to Democrats than they are to Republicans...

    MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

    [Related Article: Barack Obama and the Media Alliance]


    #6 Six Mammoth Media Corporations Produce About 90 Percent Of The Media That Americans Consume

    As I mentioned at the top of this article, there are six giant media behemoths that control almost all of the media that we consume. These corporate giants own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, video game makers, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.

    The media ownership chart posted below originally comes from a previous article that I authored entitled "Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read", but it has been updated to reflect some of the latest information. The power that these companies have is so vast that it is hard to put into words...

    Time Warner owns:

    CNN
    Home Box Office (HBO)
    Time Inc.
    Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
    Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
    CW Network (partial ownership)
    TMZ
    New Line Cinema
    Time Warner Cable
    Cinemax
    Cartoon Network
    TBS
    TNT
    America Online
    MapQuest
    Moviefone
    Castle Rock
    Sports Illustrated
    Fortune
    Marie Claire
    DC Comics
    People Magazine

    Walt Disney owns:

    ABC Television Network
    Disney Publishing
    ESPN Inc.
    Disney Channel
    The History Channel
    SOAPnet
    A&E
    Lifetime
    Buena Vista Home Entertainment
    Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
    Buena Vista Records
    Disney Records
    Hollywood Records
    Miramax Films
    Touchstone Pictures
    Walt Disney Pictures
    Pixar Animation Studios
    277 Radio Stations
    Buena Vista Games
    Hyperion Books

    Viacom owns:

    Paramount Pictures
    Paramount Home Entertainment
    Black Entertainment Television (BET)
    Comedy Central
    Country Music Television (CMT)
    Logo
    MTV
    MTV Canada
    MTV2
    Nick Magazine
    Nick at Nite
    Nick Jr.
    Nickelodeon
    Noggin
    Spike TV
    The Movie Channel
    TV Land
    VH1

    News Corporation owns:

    Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
    Fox Television Stations
    The New York Post
    TV Guide
    Fox Searchlight Pictures
    Beliefnet
    Fox Business Network
    Fox Kids Europe
    Fox News Channel
    Fox Sports Net
    Fox Television Network
    FX
    My Network TV
    MySpace
    News Limited News
    Phoenix InfoNews Channel
    Phoenix Movies Channel
    Sky PerfecTV
    Speed Channel
    STAR TV India
    STAR TV Taiwan
    STAR World
    Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
    Times Literary Supplement Magazine
    Times of London
    20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
    20th Century Fox International
    20th Century Fox Studios
    20th Century Fox Television
    BSkyB
    The Wall Street Journal
    Fox Broadcasting Company
    Fox Interactive Media
    FOXTEL
    HarperCollins Publishers
    The National Geographic Channel
    National Rugby League
    News Interactive
    News Outdoor
    Radio Veronica
    ReganBooks
    Sky Italia
    Sky Radio Denmark
    Sky Radio Germany
    Sky Radio Netherlands
    STAR
    Zondervan

    CBS Corporation owns:

    CBS News
    CBS Sports
    CBS Television Network
    CNET
    Showtime
    TV.com
    CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
    CBS Consumer Products
    CBS Outdoor
    CW Network (50% ownership)
    Infinity Broadcasting
    Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
    Westwood One Radio Network

    Comcast owns:

    NBC
    Bravo
    CNBC
    NBC News
    MSNBC
    NBC Sports
    NBC Television Network
    Oxygen
    SciFi Magazine
    Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
    Telemundo
    USA Network
    Weather Channel
    Focus Features
    NBC Universal Television Distribution
    NBC Universal Television Studio
    Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
    Hulu
    Universal Parks & Resorts
    Universal Pictures
    Universal Studio Home Video

    #7 The American People Are Absolutely Addicted To The Mainstream Media

    In a previous article about the media, I noted that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month.

    When you allow that much information to be downloaded into your brain, it is going to have a dramatic impact on how you think.

    corporate_brainwashing



    Americans are more "connected" than they ever have been before. This is especially true of our kids. They are constantly on one sort of electronic device or another. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article by Daniel Taylor...

     According to a 2010 LA Times report, young people spend on average 53 hours a week watching TV, playing video games, and sitting at the computer.

     Facebook users spend about 15 hours a month on the social networking site.

     People are walking – and driving – blindly while texting, sometimes walking into fountains and even falling off cliffs.

    If that Los Angeles Times report is true, that means that our young people are spending more than 200 hours a month connected to the media.

    But we are only awake for about 480 hours a month.

    When it comes to influencing the American people, nobody has more power than the big media companies do.

    And until we can break this sick addiction to the mainstream media and get people to start thinking for themselves, we will never see widespread changes in our society. As long as people are being "programmed" by the mainstream media, they will continue to express the opinions, attitudes and beliefs that have been downloaded into their minds.

    Please share this article with as many people as you can. It is crucial that we wake as many people up as possible while we still can.

    [Related Article: Brainwashing in America]

  • Liberals Unmasked

    liberalism_defined

    Liberals Unmasked


    Source: Rapture Ready
    Pastor: J.B. Hall
    - this sermon was originally presented at Fairview Baptist Church, Mt. Vernon KY. The sermon text is Romans 1:18-32.

    Introduction: Today, politics deeply divides Americans; and with the media having become the propaganda arm of the government, helping shape the political landscape, the debate over liberal vs. conservative views is at fever pitch.

    While modern day liberals always try to paint conservatives in a negative, fanatic, dangerous light, and while many “so-called” conservatives bring disgrace to the title, the difference between true liberals and true conservatives is found in their differing views of God.

    The word liberal is a good word…a Biblical word.

    Proverbs 11:25a says, “The liberal soul shall be made fat…”

    James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”

    Sadly though, the word liberal like so many other words such as gay, choice, freedom, etc., has been hi-jacked by God-rejecters and used to put a pleasant, acceptable face on the evil they promote.

    In Romans, Chapter 1 I believe we find a vivid picture of modern day liberals and liberalism. Let’s examine these Scriptures today to see how God takes the mask off these ungodly people to reveal the true origin, nature, and purpose of these modern day liberals. Let’s look at this picture of “Liberals Unmasked”.

    1. Verses 19–21 – Today’s version of Liberalism begins with the rejection of clear, evident, known truth about God.

    A. It is not that liberals are unsure, or are unable to believe in God.
    B. Verses 19 & 20 make it clear God has clearly revealed Himself to them by irrefutable evidence; so much so that they are without excuse to acknowledge Him to be God.
    C. The problem, according to Verse 21, is that “…when they knew God, they glorified him not as God…”
    D. The result, then, according to Verse 18, is that they “…hold the truth in unrighteousness;”
    E. In other words, they hold back, or suppress the truth by standing in unrighteousness.
    F. The problem then, is liberals’ rejection of the Godship, or headship, or authority of God.
    G. Liberalism, then, is not just an alternative political, social, or cultural view.
    H. It is plain and simple rebellion against the Almighty God!
    I. Liberalism begins with the rejection of clear, evident, known truth about God.
    [Related Article: The Ten Lies of Feminism]

    2. Verse 21b – A liberal’s rejection of God results in him viewing life through a darkened heart resulting from vain imaginations.

    A. When you reject God’s truth about your world and life, you have to invent an imaginary, made-up, concept of the world and of life.
    B. A liberal views the world from an imaginary perspective.
    C. He lives in a fantasy world of made-up realities.
    D. This imaginary, fantasy world he lives in distorts his view on everything.
    E. Verse 31 says he is “Without understanding…”
    F. Verse 22 explains to us that while they profess themselves to be wise, they are in fact fools.
    G. Psalms 14:1a says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…”
    H. Psalms 53:1a says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…”
    I. That’s why you see liberals taking outrageously ridiculous positions on very serious issues.
    J. Why would a liberal think that the most effective way to deal with fanatic evil called terrorism is dialog and negotiation; that passive dialog is more effective than aggressive offense when it comes to fighting terrorism?
    K. Why would a liberal apologize for America to try to placate those who wish to destroy her?
    L. Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh asks the question, “How can you negotiate with someone whose starting point is your death?”
    M. Why would a liberal think it is more important that other nations in the world like us than respect us; that it is more desirable to have other nations’ approval, than to take personal national steps to protect our citizens from evil attacks by fanatic, religious zealots?
    N. Why would a liberal elevate the right of someone who wishes to end the life of an unwanted unborn child or an unwanted infirmed individual over the right of the one marked for death to live?
    O. Why would the liberal elevate the perversion of self-evident gender roles that have been so since the beginning of time to legitimacy and forced acceptance by those who oppose this perversion?
    P. It is because that in their foolish dark hearts they have developed an imaginary world in which they live, causing them to lose touch with reality so that they are left with no common understanding to discern between truth and error, right and wrong, good and evil.
    Q. Their rejection of God’s truth has left them with no spiritual or moral compass to guide them through the issues of life that affect us all, and that we all have to deal with on a daily basis.
    R. According to Verse 22, in their rejection of the truth they have become fools.
    S. So then, a liberal’s rejection of God results in him viewing life through a darkened heart resulting from vain imaginations.
    [Related Article: Hell Bound!]

    3. Verse 22 – In the darkness of the liberal’s imagination he believes and professes himself to have superior wisdom.

    A. Verse 30 says they are “…proud…” and “…boasters…”
    B. This arrogant assertion of liberals’ surmised superiority in wisdom naturally impels them to seek positions of power.
    C. This supposed superiority leads them to think they have the right and responsibility to exercise authority over the masses that, of course, “do not have the wisdom to make decisions or provide for themselves.”
    D. Thus, these self-proclaimed elitists just cannot understand why when their plans and ideas are rejected.
    E. They usually think it is either because the normal people are just too mentally deficient to get it, or that they have just not explained it sufficiently to them.
    F. The arrogance and condescension of these liberals would be laughable if it was not for the fact that other God-rejecters have been duped into believing their fantasies of superiority, thus making them legitimate contenders for positions of leadership.
    G. This insatiable thirst for power drives them to respect nothing but power.
    H. This is why they always seem to either take the side of, or go soft on, ruthless dictators and abusive tyrants while they castigate our own duly elected officials who seek to discharge their duties with justice and equity.
    I. The liberals’ rejection of the authority of God also causes them, in the foolishness of their darkened hearts, to think themselves to be an apt replacement for that authority.
    J. Thus, this assumed authority will always compel liberals to get involved in issues that are none of their business, and to relentlessly pursue power to micro-govern the lives of other people they think to be endowed with far less wisdom than them.
    K. In the darkness of the liberal’s imagination he believes and professes himself to have superior wisdom.

    [Related Article: Obama's Thug America]

    4. Verse 23 – The liberal is given to changing the entire culture to fit his distorted model of reality.

    A. Since they have rejected God, they must become “…inventors of evil things…” according to Verse 30.
    B. They cannot accept or operate according to truth because then they would have to acknowledge God and His unchanging, unalterable truth.
    C. Thus, they have to invent ways of explaining and dealing with our universe that exclude God.
    D. Changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and other creatures causes them to generate theories with irreconcilable inconsistencies as they attempt to explain the universe we live in apart from God.
    E. The great example of this made up reality when it comes to creation and our subsequent existence is the theory of evolution.
    F. This changing of the glory of God also causes liberals to take extreme positions when it comes to animal rights and the relationship of animals to man.
    G. Why do liberals elevate animal life, and sometimes plant life, to the status of human life?
    H. Why is it taught in schools that man is just a more highly evolved animal?
    I. Why do liberals think it is their job to oversee the maintenance of the food supply for creatures?
    J. Why do liberals think we are the sole proprietors of planet earth; but that it is man who is the greatest threat to the earth’s existence?
    K. Why do they think population control is solely man’s responsibility?
    L. Beware of the term “sustainability” or “sustainable development”.
    M. These are code words for population reduction and control (eugenics).
    N. In Elbert County, GA stands a stone monument shrouded in mystery known as The Georgia Guidestones, or The American Stonehenge.
    O. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 Guides, or commandments.
    P. The number one Guide, or commandment, is: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
    Q. This would require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world's people.
    R. When one rejects God there is no one left to depend upon for the welfare and maintenance of his universe but man himself.
    S. What arrogant irony that liberals work themselves silly trying to attend to responsibilities that God has reserved unto Himself.
    T. Verse 25 sums up their folly. Instead of expressing appreciation to God for their environment and the creatures that inhabit it with them, they worship and serve the very things God has put here for our benefit and enjoyment.
    U. Yes, the liberal is given to changing the entire culture to fit his distorted model of reality.

    5. Verses 24–28 – The liberal, in attempting to liberate himself from the guidelines set forth by God, thinking them to be restraints to his self-expression, enters into a perverted lifestyle.

    A. Liberals are so intent on extricating themselves from the authority of God over their lives, we are told 3 times here that God gives them their way.
    B. In Verse 24 we are told, “…God …gave them up to uncleanness…”
    C. In Verse 26 we are told, “…God gave them up unto vile affections…”
    D. In Verse 28 we are told, “…God gave them over to a reprobate mind…”
    E. God gives them up to uncleanness, and up to vile affections, and ultimately gives them over to a reprobate mind, a mind completely devoid of reason and decency.
    F. While perversions of all kinds mark the lives of liberals, none is more prominent than the perversion of the male/female roles.
    G. In America this perversion began as a movement for women’s rights.
    H. Then, the marital roles were discarded for what was termed in the 1960s “free love”.
    I. This perversion has now progressed into same-gender physical intimacy.
    J. And now, according to Wikipedia, “Politicians and political parties have expressed support (for same-sex marriage) and of the two main parties, the Democratic Party has the greatest number of supporters, but the cause has also been championed by some Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, Socialists, and Communists.”
    K. Sin is progressive; it cannot be satisfied at a given level. It must move to greater and greater levels of perversion just to generate a sense of pleasure.
    L. The mass movement into perversion of physical intimacy is usually one of the last stages a people enters before the fall of that culture.
    M. Jude, Verse 7 says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
    N. If the perversion itself does not bring about the disintegration of a culture, God will sovereignly exercise His authority in judging that nation.
    O. Remember in Leviticus 18:25–28 that God destroyed the nations that committed these abominations and gave their lands to the children of Israel.
    P. He then reminded them (the children of Israel) not to commit the same abominations lest He spue them out of the land, too.
    Q. According to these verses, sexual perversion is the stage at which God gives a people over to a reprobate mind and allows them to pursue the wickedness they have so striven with Him to gain the freedom to pursue.
    R. And my friends, we are at that stage in America.
    S. The liberal, in attempting to liberate himself from the guidelines set forth by God in His Word, enters into a perverted lifestyle.
    [Related Article: Gay Activist Admits Truth]
    [Related Article: Is Homosexuality A Sin?]

    6. Verses 29–31 – The liberal, having gained the freedom to pursue his own perverted view of reality, is filled with all manner of wickedness.

    A. Let’s look at a few of these descriptions and at how they play out in the lives of liberals in the political arena.
    B. Covetousness – Liberals are extremely self-focused individuals. They are always internally focused rather than externally focused. Their rejection of God has made them the center of their own universe. Those who belong to God, on the other hand, are, or should be, externally focused. Churches must make it a priority to transition from an internal focus to an external focus – not just being about meeting and greeting and eating; but about outreach.
    C. Maliciousness – (hateful, Harboring ill will or enmity without provocation; malevolent in the extreme; malignant in heart.) Liberals use every means and institution at their disposal to try to completely destroy anyone who opposes their viewpoints.
    D. Debate – (strife) – Liberals are in constant disagreement with someone, always seeking to argue about some point in an attempt to establish their own superiority.
    E. Deceit & covenant-breakers – To liberals deception is simply a means to an end. Truth is of little value unless it produces the desired outcome. Covenants are just tools in their arsenal of deceit. Covenants are not to be taken seriously unless they produce the desired end.
    F. Implacable – (Not to be appeased; that can not be pacified and rendered peaceable; inexorable; stubborn or constantly at enmity). Liberals cannot be appeased. They can never accept a reasonable position or action, if it is in disagreement with their position.
    G. Unmerciful – Liberals take no prisoners. They cannot be satisfied until their opponents are utterly destroyed and eliminated. Anything short of elimination for an opponent is unacceptable.
    H. Liberals, having been given over to a reprobate mind, are so full of themselves that every area of their lives is perverted. They are incapable of assuming a correct perspective on almost any issue.
    I. The liberal is filled with all manner of wickedness.

    7. Verse 32 – The liberal is not satisfied to be a personal participant in wickedness; he must also champion the cause of others who are participants in evil, also.

    A. The first part of the verse reminds us liberals do not enter the lifestyle of perversion or champion the perversion of others blindly.
    B. They know “…the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death…” yet they rebel, knowing their actions will bring the judgment of God.
    C. Defiant to the end is an apt description of liberals.
    D. Instead of becoming involved in causes that will benefit humanity, they give themselves to promoting perversion and suppressing righteousness – see Verse 18b again…they “…hold the truth in unrighteousness;”
    E. Therefore, liberals will almost always come down on the side of those who oppose Biblical principles, regardless of the issue involved.
    F. Ever wonder why a radical feminist would try to protect and placate Islam, one of the most abusive ideologies toward women ever contrived?
    G. It makes no sense that someone supposedly committed to promoting women’s rights would champion the greatest abusers of women on the planet.
    H. Liberals always champion the causes and participants of all manner of evil, even if those causes are not ones they themselves are personally interested in.
    [Related Article: Prayers for Richmond, VA]

    In Conclusion:


    Modern-day Liberals are those who have rejected God and His authority over His creation. Thus, they are compelled to invent a made-up reality that of necessity opposes all that is true or Godly. That is why they are in constant opposition to righteousness and those who belong to God.
     The entrenched political establishment in America, both Democrat and Republican, are almost completely comprised of those who oppose God and everyone who will side with Him – liberals, or progressives as they like to call themselves.
    The goal of both political parties is usually not truth; it is to be in power. If there are compromises along the way, these are simply written off as adjustments that were necessary in order to achieve their objective. Many, and perhaps most, politicians who have made politics their lives, often utilize deception and compromise as tools to achieve their goals of obtaining and/or maintaining power.
    Those who belong to God, however, must be issue oriented; not party or personality oriented. If a candidate for office aligns himself with Biblical principles, he must be your choice for office. If a candidate opposes Biblical principles, he must be rejected, regardless of party affiliation or personal likableness.

    Instead of being a Democrat, the Christian must be a Biblicrat.

    Instead of being a Republican, the Christian must be a Biblican.

    The child of God must learn to vote by faith, not by fear…choosing to vote only for those who espouse Biblical positions, and refusing to vote for those who do not.
    So, on what basis will you choose who you will vote for?

    Related Articles:

    - The Gay Takeover of America (ONE WAY)

    - Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance (ONE WAY)

    - Noah's Neighbors (ONE WAY)

    - The Psychopathology Of the Liberal Mind (ONE WAY)

    -

  • Will Nice People Go To Hell?

    Nice People Go To Hell

    Author: Grant Phillips
    Source: Rapture Ready

    The title of this article is a tragedy of all tragedies; because it is true. Apostate ministers, ignorance of God’s Word and a warm, fuzzy, make me “feel good” society, is providing information that is completely antithetical to the Truth.

    I cannot begin to count the times that I have heard someone make a statement that basically states that their deceased loved one was with God because…. (You fill in the blank.) I would keep waiting for: “Because they believed in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and asked Him to be saved.” But that isn’t what is said. Sad, Sad, Sad!
    [Related Article: Prayers For Richmond, VA]

    The Bible says:

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.
    (John 3:16)

    “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast”.
    (Ephesians 2:8-9)

    These are only two verses among many more that make it very clear about what we all must do to be saved. It isn’t rocket science! A child can understand this! Jesus wrote it this simply, so we could all understand!

    Then why do they say what they say?

    They were so good. They gave so much. She raised us well. He worked hard to support us. He was a good husband. She was a great wife. They loved everybody. They were so well liked. They always paid their bills. They belonged to the church. They were baptized. They walked the aisle. They headed up all these organizations. They donated to various organizations.
    [Related Article: The Psychopathology Of the Liberal Mind]

    This list could go on and on and on infinitum, but only one thing is important at this point. Did they put their trust in Jesus Christ to save them? That’s it!

    It amazes me that people will rest the eternal destiny of their soul upon what everybody says, except the One who gives them the correct information. That correct information is called the Truth.

    The Bible says:

    “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me”.
    (John 14:6)

    There you have it! Jesus will tell you the Truth. He even goes on to say that if you want to go to Heaven after you die, He is the only way to get there. We must go through Him by faith or we don’t go at all.
    [Related Article: An Open Letter to Richmond, VA]

    It certainly isn’t up to me, or you, to even attempt to determine if so-and-so is saved when we notice their actions. Christians can be “naughty” too, and the heavenly Father does discipline His children; unlike most earthly parents of today. Nevertheless, I have seen folks live for the devil and think that they’re okay. They think can live for the devil down here, and live for Jesus in heaven, I guess. Where did that idea come from? I don’t know where it came from, but it is widely practiced.

    Okay, so I do know where it comes from. Notice this passage:

    “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”.
    (1 Peter 5:8)

    Satan, the devil, is a roaring lion, and I can assure you he isn’t going hungry. Every day people are dying, good people, and going to hell, because they are being swept up in his lies. Satan says, “Live any way you want, there is no hell, your good deeds will out-weigh your bad deeds, there are many ways to God.” Blah, blah, blah… It is all a lie. Only Jesus will tell you the Truth. Listen to Him.
    [Related Article: Is Jesus Really the Only Way To Heaven?]

    Jesus isn’t out to devour us. Satan is. Jesus is out to save as many as will come to Him. Satan is out to prevent it. One final thought: Are any of us really good? Notice what God has to say about that:

    “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one”.
    (Romans 3:10-12)

    “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God”.
    (Mark 10:18)

    dead_religion


    We may think our loved one is now in heaven with God because they were “good” but that isn’t what God says. If they are now in heaven with God, it is because they believed in His Son Jesus and Jesus saved their soul.

    What about Mark 10:18 above? I suppose someone is thinking, “Jesus wasn’t good either. He said so.”

    That is not what Jesus said. He said:

    “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”

    Is He not God? Notice what He says in the book of John.

    “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one”.
    (John 10:29-30, emphasis mine)

    In Mark 10:18, Jesus was trying to get the young man to recognize who was standing right in front of him. He was telling him, “I am God; you must come to the Father through Me.”
    [Related Article: Salvation, Atonement, and Redemption]

    If you will read the entire passage of Mark 10:18-22, you will find that this young man was a “good person.” That wasn’t enough, though. It didn’t count. Why did Jesus tell him to sell all he had and give to the poor?

    Would that save him? No.

    So why did Jesus tell him this? He told him this to change his heart. The young man was all caught up in his good works and possessions. He loved them more than anything else, and wasn’t ready to give Jesus first place in his life. A “good” person walked away from Jesus that day. I imagine that as Jesus watched him walk away, the young man got smaller and smaller as the distance between them became greater and greater, until he was out of sight.

    A “good” person walked out into eternity lost.

    Nice people go to hell, but they don’t have too.
    [Related Article: A Man and A Fly]

  • The Teaching of Hatred


    Hating America

    Author: Walter E. Williams
    Source: CNS News 5/14/2013

    Brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who are accused of setting the bombs that exploded at the Boston Marathon, attended the University of Massachusetts. Maybe they hated our nation before college, but if you want lessons on hating America, college attendance might be a good start. Let's look at it.

    "We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it." That's taught to University of Hawaii students by Professor Haunani-Kay Trask. Richard Falk, professor emeritus at Princeton University and the U.N. Human Rights Council's Palestine monitor, explained the Boston bombings by saying, "The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world." Professor Falk has also stated that President George W. Bush ordered the destruction of the twin towers.
    [Related Article: Zero Tolerance for Non-Conformity]

    University of Southern California professor Darry Sragow preaches hate to his students in his regulation of elections and political finance class, recently telling them that Republicans are stupid, racist losers and that they are angry old white people.
    [Related Article: Obama's Thug America]

    A few years ago, Rod Swanson, a UCLA economics professor, told his class, "The United States of America, backed by facts, is the greediest and most selfish country in the world." Penn State University professor Matt Jordan compared supporters of the voter ID laws to the Ku Klux Klan. Professor Sharon Sweet, an algebra teacher at Brevard Community College, told her students to sign a pledge that read, "I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket." Fortunately, the college's trustees fired her.
    [Related Article: Shepherds and Sheep]

    University of Rhode Island history professor Erik Loomis tweeted, "I want (National Rifle Association executive vice president) Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick." He asked, "Can (we) define NRA membership as dues contributing to a terrorist organization?" Here's a sample of how Professor Loomis frequently expresses himself: "Motherf---ing f---heads f---ing f---."

    Then there's Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman, who explained our national problems by saying, "But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions." Professor Seidman worked for The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. When he was sworn in as an officer of the court, I wonder what constitution he swore to uphold and defend.

    Parents don't have to wait for college admission for their youngsters to receive America-hating lessons. Scott Compton, an English teacher at Chapin High School in Chapin, S.C., was put on administrative leave after he allegedly threw an American flag on the floor and stomped on it in front of his students. He has chosen to resign.

    An Advanced Placement world geography teacher at Lumberton High School in Texas encouraged students to dress in Islamic clothing and instructed them to refer to the 9/11 hijackers not as terrorists but as "freedom fighters." They were also told to stop referring to the Holocaust as genocide. John Valastro, the superintendent of the Lumberton Independent School District, told Fox News that the teacher did absolutely nothing wrong.
    [Related Article: Obama and Your New School Curriculum]

    In McAllen, Texas, teachers tried to force a teenager to sing the Mexican national anthem and recite Mexico's pledge of allegiance. The teen refused, saying it was against her beliefs as an American. She was thrown out of the class and given a failing grade for that day's assignment. Her father has filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter against the McAllen Independent School District.

    Investor's Business Daily ran a story that shows student indoctrination is official union policy: "A New Low From The California Federation Of Teachers: Urine Indoctrination" (12/5/12). The union's website has a cartoon narrated by leftist Hollywood actor Ed Asner. In tones used when reading to children, Asner says: "(Rich people) love their money more than anything in the whole world. ... Over time, rich people decided they weren't rich enough, so they came up with ways to get richer." The cartoon finishes its class warfare message by graphically depicting "the rich" urinating on the poor.
    [Related Article: A Tribute to Communism]

    These people running our education system are destroying the minds and values of our young people, and we allow them to do it.
    [Related Article: John Dewey, Education, and American Decay]

    walter_e_williams

    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Free Market Project.

  • Where Are His Fans Now?

    Obama's biggest fans abandoning ship?

    They used to think him a 'thrill,' but latest scandals smell more of 'tyranny'

    Author: Drew Zahn
    Source: World Net Daily    5/18/2013

    Barack Obama once enjoyed a Teflon reputation in the mainstream media, where his allies were quick to deflect criticism of his presidency and bad news never seemed to stick.

    But as scandal upon scandal have washed over his administration in recent

    obama_begs

    weeks – first a floundering response to attacks in Benghazi that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, then reports the IRS targeted his political opponents, then news the Justice Department seized phone records of Associated Press reporters – even some of Obama’s most ardent supporters in the mainstream media are turning critical.

    MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example – he of the infamous “thrill up my leg” comment during Obama’s 2008 campaign – offered unusually harsh words earlier this week, complaining the president “obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch.”

    Politico – certainly not a conservative-leaning news source – described Matthews’ remarks as “a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.”

    On another occasion this week, Matthews blasted testimony from former IRS chief Steve Miller, who suggested the agency’s behavior was inappropriate but denied any political targeting.

    “That Mr. Miller guy,” Matthews said, “It’s like he didn’t see what he knew people certainly right, left and center could see, that when you target particular groups, you’re targeting particular groups. I mean, if this were on the other foot, and this was a George W. administration, they were targeting groups that were calling themselves progressives, I would say it’s prima facie evidence of targeting. I don’t think it’s complicated.”

    As WND reported, even CNN talk-show host Piers Morgan paused in his relentless crusade for stricter gun-control laws to comment, “I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you.

    “But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government,” Morgan concluded. “I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”

    An Investor’s Business Daily editorial commented, “Many in the dominant press are indeed turning. Politico ran a chilling story headlined ‘The IRS Wants You to Share Everything’; NBC’s Andrea Mitchell accuses Obama of ‘the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen’ in her years in journalism, going back before Watergate; the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank accuses Obama of ‘a full frontal assault on the First Amendment.’”

    “Let me tell you how bad it’s gotten,” NBC “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno quipped. “Fox News has changed its slogan from ‘Fair and Balanced’ to ‘See, I Told You So!’”

    MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow further noticed it’s not just the media, but also congressional allies jumping off the Obama bandwagon. When Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced plans to retire in 2014, he became the sixth Democrat to step down two years from now instead of running for re-election.

    “Tell us if something is wrong there,” Maddow said rhetorically. “What is the secret about this place that has you fleeing like rats from a sinking ship?”

    The trend, which may have begun when some Democrats started ducking for political cover from fallout over Obamacare, has only continued in the wake of Obama’s recent scandals.

    Even Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bristled over the AP phone-records story, telling Salon he “can’t really defend the Department of Justice at all” and, “I just think this has been handled so wrong.”

    Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., agreed, telling MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, “I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given a sufficient answer for America, much less our press [about the AP scandal]. The president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press that they were going to do this. He has to tell Americans, including me, what was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect us just to salute it every time without any reason, and the same thing applies to the IRS. We’ve got to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it’s just negligence or it’s criminal.”

    Other examples of criticism coming from typically left-leaning allies include the following:

    - Even in the middle of a WND column defending the administration on Benghazi and the IRS scandal, left-wing author and journalist Bill Press declared, “The Justice Department’s raid of AP phone records is nothing less than a totally unjustified, wholesale trashing of the First Amendment.”
    - The Daily Beast – a website merged with Newsweek – ran a column from James Goodale, the attorney who defended the New York Times against President Richard Nixon in the famous Pentagon Papers trial, who asserted, “President Barack H. Obama’s outrageous seizure of the Associated Press’s phone records, allegedly to discover sources of leaks, should surprise no one. Obama has relentlessly pursued leakers ever since he became president. He is fast becoming the worst national security press president ever, and it may not get any better.”
    - In an interview with the New York Observer, Goodale added, “Obama has all these things that he’s done to the press on national security matters that Nixon never did.”
    - Lanny J. Davis, a former crisis manager for President Clinton who admits he voted for and backs Obama, told National Public Radio, “[Obama's] crisis-management communications team is absent without leave. Ever since we lost the message on health care, I’ve wondered if there’s anybody there trying to get out in front on the facts.”
    - NPR further reported Davis saying the IRS story goes to the heart of government abuse of power: “The president of the United States should hold a press conference and commit to a full, 100-percent investigation in concert with the Republican leadership of the House and say, ‘I want to have on my desk the list of anybody who recommended doing this. In the government, in the White House, or anywhere else.’”
    - Time political columnist Joe Klein wrote of the IRS news, even before the AP scandal broke, “Yet again, we have an example of Democrats simply not managing the government properly and with discipline. … This is just poisonous at a time of skepticism about the efficacy of government. … [Obama's] unwillingness to concentrate – and I mean concentrate obsessively – on making sure that government is managed efficiently will be part of his legacy.”
    - Dana Milbank of the Washington Post penned similar criticism of Obama. “President Passerby needs urgently to become a participant in his presidency,” Milbank wrote, arguing Obama was reacting to the scandals with a portrayed ignorance reminiscent of “just some bloke on a bar stool, getting his information from the evening news.”
    - Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press leveled his criticism at White House Press Secretary Jay Carney at a May 14 press briefing: “The White House right now is confronting a confluence of issues – Benghazi talking points, IRS reviews of political groups, Justice Department review of journalists’ phone records. And in every instance, either the president or you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else. On the Benghazi talking points, it’s been political motivations on the Hill. On the IRS, it’s been the bureaucrats at the IRS. And on the Justice Department issue, yesterday in your statement you said those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. But it is the president’s administration, so I wonder, doesn’t responsibility for setting tone and setting direction ultimately rest with the president on these matters?”
    - Other reporters at the same press briefing passed up softball questions for tougher lines of inquiry, including whether news of the IRS scandal was “withheld until after the election,” whether or not the AP subpoena’s constituted an “overreach,” whether the administration “might be hiding something,” if the IRS is being “truthful” and how the president feels about “being compared to President Nixon.” The press corps also grilled Carney relentlessly on the president’s reputation for prosecuting those who leak information to the press.
    - Michigan’s Rep. Sander Levin, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in Friday’s hearings before the committee the IRS and its employees “have completely failed the American people” by “singling out organizations for review based on their name or political views, rather than their activity. … All of us are angry about this on behalf of the nation.”
    “As you know, it’s casual Friday, which means at the White House they’re casually going through everyone’s phone calls and records,” joked Leno on Friday. “Love him or hate him, you got to admit President Obama is a new kind of Democrat. I mean, think about it. He’s embroiled in three scandals, not one of them involves sex. That has never happened before. … It’s been a tough week for President Obama. In fact, this morning he called Mitt Romney and said, ‘Look, if you still want the job.’”

    Despite the media’s change in tone from easy forgiveness to legitimate criticism of Obama, the Media Research Council’s Brent Bozell warns the media are not really “up in arms” with the Obama administration, but are simply having a “lover’s quarrel,” particularly over the AP flap.

    “The Bill Clinton syndrome is going to be upon us,” Bozell predicted on CNBC’s May 16 “The Kudlow Report” program, “where it’s time to move on, we’ve covered it [the media will say] and they’re going to turn the fire right on Republicans as being obstructionists. … The zeal of going after Watergate with Woodward and Bernstein, that hasn’t been there.”

    obama_lies

    Drew Zahn is a WND news editor who cut his journalist teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. A former pastor, he is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."

  • The IRS Scandal

    The IRS Scandal -- a Basic Primer

    Author: Jonathon Moseley
    Source: AmericanThinker.com 5/18/2013

    Confusion about the IRS scandal is distracting from its importance, so that thinking conservatives should be prepared to debate the issue. Some basics matter. Conservatives may need to share a summary such as this article to help convince moderate friends.

    Callers to C-SPAN badly misunderstood these details when Jenny Beth Martin, Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, appeared on C-SPAN television last week. I interviewed Keli Carender of Tea Party Patriots on the radio on May15, who helped clarify some of the pushback and distractions from liberals.

    the_IRS

    First, don't let people forget: the IRS scandal is not about conservative accusations. The Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury issued a report finding that the Internal Revenue Service sharply discriminated against conservative organizations. This is confirmed by Treasury's Inspector General.

    Second, a group's political beliefs and positions ought to be totally irrelevant. Tax exemption must be based on what an organization does, not what it believes or what positions it supports. Whether a group teaches the Constitution or teaches union tactics doesn't matter, it is educating either way. Therefore, the IRS should not have been looking at the name of the organization, whether liberal or conservative, but on the substance of the organization.

    Third, many people don't realize that nearly all liberal political organizations are tax exempt. There has been a lot of distraction and diversion focused on whether or not the IRS should have scrutinized tea party groups. However, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood (which has been active in partisan election campaigns), Media Matters, etc., are all tax exempt. Organizations on the Left similar to tea party groups have had tax exempt status forever.

    Fourth, don't allow people to wander away from the central point that the scandal is about a double standard -- not whether people believe political organizations should be tax exempt. Conservatives seeking tax exempt status were treated very differently from similarly-situated liberal organizations. Sure, some liberal groups were scrutinized. But conservatives were treated differently.

    IRS official Lois Lerner fast-walked the tax-exempt application of Barack Obama's half-brother, the best man at President Obama's wedding. Abon'go "Roy' Malik Obama got tax-exempt status in a bureaucratic breakneck speed, in only 30 days, in May 2011, even though it is unclear what if anything the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does or has done since being approved.

    When a conservative organization Media Trackers couldn't get approved after 8 months, it changed its project to the liberal-sounding name "Greenhouse Solutions." With the new name, the exact same project was approved within 3 weeks.

    Liberal groups -- even with very political activities -- were systematically approved, and quickly, with relatively little burden or scrutiny, as reported by USA Today.

    Groups supporting Israel were discriminated against. In August 2010, a pro-Israel group "Z Street" filed a Federal lawsuit when an IRS staff member admitted that all Israel-related groups were singled out by the IRS for extra scrutiny. There will be a hearing this July 2013, after the case was transferred to the Federal district in Washington, D.C.

    The IRS demanded that a Pro-Life group promote abortion in order to get tax-exempt status. No liberal group has such a requirement. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not required to promote abstinence, adoption, or Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

    It is the law that the IRS must answer within 270 days for 501(c)(3) organizations, yet the IRS delayed conservative organizations for more than 540 days.

    Fifth, there are many different types of tea party organizations. Some tea party organizations are Political Action Committees (PAC's) which are directly involved in election campaigns. Others focus purely on training tea party organizers and members on how to be effective in organizing events and lobbying on legislation. Some purely educate about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc. Others lobby on pending legislation.

    So when the public hears about tea party organizations applying for tax exempt status, they often imagine only campaigning for or against a candidate. That is not tax exempt. Some tea party groups qualify. Some don't.

    Sixth, many have questioned whether the IRS wasn't doing the job it should have done by asking questions of tea party groups seeking tax exempt status. No one objects to the IRS obtaining basic information and asking reasonable questions. The problem is that the IRS bombarded tea party and conservative groups with multiple waves of a huge number of very intrusive questions. And the wave after wave of questions seemed aimed at never getting around to finishing the process or persuading groups to simply give up and abandon their application.

    Seventh, many don't recognize what 'tax exempt' means. It means that if someone donates to a tea party group, the donations are not taxed as income. Otherwise, any political organization would have to pay income taxes on donations.

    A tax-exempt organization may still have to pay taxes on other income, such as sales of products or services. Some C-SPAN callers imagined that people in such groups don't pay income taxes. Of course, people running or working in tax-exempt groups pay income taxes on their salary the same as everyone else.

    There are four important categories:

    1. A 501(c)(4) organization is tax-exempt (they don't pay income taxes on donations). A 501(c)(4) organization is allowed to lobby for or against legislation, but is not allowed to advocate for or against a candidate. A 501(c)(4) also can do anything a 501(c)(3) can do.

    2. A 501(c)(3) organization is both tax-exempt and tax-deductible. That is, contributors can deduct their donations from their income taxes. It is much more difficult to qualify for 501(c)(3) status. A 501(c)(3) cannot lobby for or against legislation (except to an insignificant extent) and may not engage in any partisan' (campaign) activity. A 501(c)(3) can educate the public on policy, issues, the advantages and disadvantages of various political policies and topics like the Constitution, concepts of our Founding Fathers, etc. or train citizens.

    3. A Political Action Committee (PAC or Super-PAC) intervenes directly in partisan campaigns and does not qualify as tax exempt.

    4. A 527 organization is a recent development, which also intervenes directly in partisan campaigns and does not qualify as tax exempt.

    Eighth, many are not aware of the difference between 'political' and 'partisan.' Tax exempt organizations are allowed to engage in public discussion and lobbying of 'political' issues affecting society. That is very different from 'partisan' activity. 'Partisan' means influencing a campaign -- that is, advocating for or against a candidate in an election (not necessarily just discussing policy or issues).

    An example is the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CREW is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, tax deductible foundation. Its head Melanie Sloan earns $230,000 per year. CREW does nothing but slander conservative Republicans and a few Democrats who get out of line with mostly false accusations.

    Christine O'Donnell won the Republican primary for United States Senate from Delaware. This was learned at 8:00 PM on September 14, 2010. By about 11:00 AM on September 15, 2010, CREW started attacking Christine O'Donnell and publicly declaring that Christine belongs in jail not in the Senate.

    Advocating for or against a candidate is the test of 'partisan' (campaign) activity that is prohibited for a tax-exempt organization. CREW ignored Christine until she won the GOP Primary. But within hours CREW started attacking her. CREW explicitly referenced her status as a candidate, and specifically that she does not belong in the Senate. Melanie Sloan explicitly said that the voters should know all this when they go to vote in November 2010.

    I noticed this pattern and conceived, developed, planned, and drafted the complaint against CREW to the IRS, which ChristinePAC later filed with the IRS in July 2011. Yet two years later, the IRS has done nothing. Melanie Sloan's parents are big donors to former Delaware Senator Joe Biden and CREW attacks conservatives. Don't expect the IRS to hold liberals responsible for anything.


    Related Articles:

    - The Blood On His Hands (ONE WAY @ Orble.com)

  • Shepherds and Sheep

    Shepherds and Sheep

    Author: Thomas Sowell
    Source: HumanEvents.com 2/26/2013

    John Stuart Mill’s classic essay “On Liberty” gives reasons why some people should not be taking over other people’s decisions about their own lives. But Professor Cass Sunstein of Harvard has given reasons to the contrary. He cites research showing “that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging.”

    Professor_Cass_Sunstein

    Professor Sunstein is undoubtedly correct that “people make a lot of mistakes.” Most of us can look back over our own lives and see many mistakes, including some that were very damaging.

    What Cass Sunstein does not tell us is what sort of creatures, other than people, are going to override our mistaken decisions for us. That is the key flaw in the theory and agenda of the left.

    Implicit in the wide range of efforts on the left to get government to take over more of our decisions for us is the assumption that there is some superior class of people who are either wiser or nobler than the rest of us.

    Yes, we all make mistakes. But do governments not make bigger and more catastrophic mistakes?

    Think about the First World War, from which nations on both sides ended up worse off than before, after an unprecedented carnage that killed substantial fractions of whole younger generations and left millions starving amid the rubble of war.

    Think about the Holocaust, and about other government slaughters of even more millions of innocent men, women and children under Communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

    Even in the United States, government policies in the 1930s led to crops being plowed under, thousands of little pigs being slaughtered and buried, and milk being poured down sewers, at a time when many Americans were suffering from hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition.

    The Great Depression of the 1930s, in which millions of people were plunged into poverty in even the most prosperous nations, was needlessly prolonged by government policies now recognized in retrospect as foolish and irresponsible.

    One of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes. But government officials cannot admit to making a mistake without jeopardizing their whole careers.

    Can you imagine a President of the United States saying to the mothers of America, “I am sorry your sons were killed in a war I never should have gotten us into”?

    What is even more relevant to Professor Sunstein’s desire to have our betters tell us how to live our lives, is that so many oppressive and even catastrophic government policies were cheered on by the intelligentsia.

    Back in the 1930s, for example, totalitarianism was considered to be “the wave of the future” by much of the intelligentsia, not only in the totalitarian countries themselves but in democratic nations as well.

    The Soviet Union was being praised to the skies by such literary luminaries as George Bernard Shaw in Britain and Edmund Wilson in America, while literally millions of people were being systematically starved to death by Stalin and masses of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.

    Even Hitler and Mussolini had their supporters or apologists among intellectuals in the Western democracies, including at one time Lincoln Steffens and W.E.B. Du Bois.

    An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler’s massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

    “Disarmament” was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should “set an example” for other nations, as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

    Too many among today’s intellectual elite see themselves as our shepherds and us as their sheep. Tragically, too many of us are apparently willing to be sheep, in exchange for being taken care of, being relieved of the burdens of adult responsibility and being supplied with “free” stuff paid for by others.

  • The Blackness of His Heart

    The Blackness of His Heart

    angry_obama

    Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings?

    Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful?"

    Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday – or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values.

    He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

    Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness.

    He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the gravesites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

    Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.

    He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many.

    Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego.

    He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who oppose his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

    Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter").

    He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue.

    Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security.

    He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions.

    And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

    Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.

    Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

    Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

    Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people – on a daily basis!

    Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America, and the epitome of a Demagogue.

    "Obama comes from a community organizer background where it's us against them. But that's not who we are. And that's not the position the leader of our Nation should take." – Dr. Benjamin Carson

    Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors. It seems to have never left him.

    It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.