I remember my pop
would get dressed on Sunday morning, perk a pot of coffee, and slip on his gardening
shoes. He’d find his car keys, then drive to the local country store to buy a paper.
I guess it was more a habit to get a newspaper than to turn on a TV channel. Sundays
were always quiet.
flipped through the news, I played on the flagstone porch floor whose mortar
joints I used as roads. For hours I built and constructed a world all of my
own. It was a painting better described as Norman Rockwell… a father’s face
buried between the worldly events and sports, and a child at his feet building
miles of dreams in his head. This is what love looked like to me at home.
“Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”
The serene scenery
of swans swimming across the waters of the Tred Avon River lent itself to the ducks
which lined the dock in search of food. It was a different world in those days.
The infrastructure and landscape were ever changing. It would not be long
before we could drive over the waters of the Chesapeake, instead of taking a ferryboat.
This morning I
flipped from Google to Yahoo news and read the commentaries of discernment. The
world is full of hatred – an opposite ingredient of what love looks like with
God in your world. I don’t know about you, but I refuse to live in a place
without the condiments of love! We are God’s prodigies who live in a society of
recreational love with very little significance to the word.
has over one hundred scriptures directly related to the fundamentals of love. I
can find what love looks like everywhere in my world. It’s from my sweet wife
giving me a cold glass of iced tea on a hot summer afternoon; my cockatoo who
comes to me in his time of need; hanging up a fresh towel for my wife on a hook
near the shower; turning down her corner of the bed at night. Love isn’t just an
expression of “I do’s,” but a state of mind.
“Husbands, love your wives, just as
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing
her by the washing with water through the word.”
What love looks like outside marriage may involve the special squeezes or a smile from our grandchildren; a neighbor getting the mail for a someone housebound; baking a dish for the less fortunate; donations or volunteering to help others. Giving of yourself, even if it’s inconvenient, means more than all the money in the world. A lesson on the definition of loving one’s neighbor is in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). We are to have compassion and love towards each other, irrespective of the parameters which divide us.
So, what does love
look like to you? Have you searched your heart, or is the wallet more
important? Love is a verb meaning affection based on admiration. It begins when
“The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
It’s another perfect morning, and I give God the glory and love. My gorgeous bride prepares breakfast for her hubby. I think about the many wasted years I wish I could do over, for we missed so much living separate lives. How can I ever show her how much I love her? It’s easy, you know… I stand beside her, and God is our center. I never want to let go of the immense feelings of love I have for her!
I recently read this quote attributed to legendary actor Clint Eastwood,
If you could reason with Democrats, there wouldn’t be any Democrats.
I immediately thought that truer words have never been spoken. This same idea has rolled around in my brain concerning the Left in general for many years and I have wondered why that is so.
Why can’t reason sway a Leftist? Why is it that using reasonable speech to counter a Leftist talking-point is met with verbal, and sometimes beyond verbal, attempts to silence you?
After much consideration and observation of Leftist behavior, I think I have at least a partial answer.
Why Reason is Unconvincing to Leftists
There are several reasons the Left can’t be reasoned with. However, they can be summed up by the elevation of emotion over truth by the devotees of Leftism.
It is important to understand that emotions are not inherently unreasonable. For instance, it is not unreasonable to have strong negative emotions toward someone who has harmed you or your loved ones.
However, emotions become unreasonable when they are allowed to dictate beliefs and actions to such an extent that seeking harm to another is the result. This is, in part, why God’s Word rails against seeking vengeance against an enemy.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19 [ESV]
A specific example of using emotion over reason was analyzed in this journal last year concerning the disgusting behavior of the Left against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In that drama, the presumption of innocence was tossed aside in favor of a political agenda while smearing an honorable man before Congress.
Moreover, two of the current Democratic candidates for President, Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] and Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA], were exceptionally defamatory and ridiculous at the same time. Recall that the Kavanaugh hearings were where Booker became a self-proclaimed ‘Spartacus.’
Worse, they also did real damage to those who are the vast majority of victims of sexual crimes. Which makes it easier for those who are truly guilty to prey on the innocent.
Moreover, this terrible farce will not serve to help real victims of sexual crimes. Instead, it will make it harder for accounts to be believed even if the stories are credible. So much for the Democrats helping women.
It is unreasonable to advocate for an emotional response which, if successful, would harm those who they claim are their staunch allies.
The Left today epitomizes and advocates incoherent and unreasonable policy in society with enforcement by the state in a number of areas. The attempt to justify this is full of emotional appeals designed to castigate logic and reason.
The current press of “transgender rights” into society and law is a perfect example of emotion over reason. Reason would recognize the biological reality of male and female and not accept the concept of ‘gender fluidity.’
The emotional appeals of imagined victims who claim their right to ‘identify’ as any sex they wish anytime they wish are used as attacks against not allowing the mentally disturbed to have their way. The impact of the emotion on some drives them to attempt the patently absurd.
For example, witness the infamous case of a Canadian man who now ‘identifies’ as a woman that wanted to have “her” genitals waxed, but was refused service by a real woman who wasn’t comfortable doing that. He is suing the business on the basis of gender discrimination.
The fact that both high-ranking politicians and ‘gender-challenged’ people will engage in totally unreasonable and even deranged behavior invites an important question. What is their motive, that is, what do they have to gain through this?
The Motive Is Power
Put simply, the motive is power. In the case of the man convinced he is really a woman, the motive will be personal power, specifically power to legally invade the privacy of real women and children.
In some particular people, the personal power of gender ‘identity’ is specific to athletic endeavors. The recent domination of several women’s sports on the high school level is evidence of that.
In some, those of means or already in positions of power, such as politicians, the motive is gaining power over others. The Leftist politicians will say that they should be given more power to be used for the creation of a more perfect, humanistic utopia.
Some of those political figures might truly believe in the Socialist ideal of a man-made paradise on earth. If so, they are also exhibiting unreasonable faith in a system that has never worked despite many, many attempts in the real world.
Their misplaced faith is even more deluded given that there are real-time examples of Socialism’s inherent failure going on around the world today. Venezuela is the most recent prominent example of such yet that does not dissuade the enthusiasts of the Left at all.
This faith of the Left, or as they might call it, “progressivism,” is very much like a religious cult without a real Diety. This false faith is placed in imperfect humans in authority with the expectation that somehow a more perfect government and society will be the result.
The Founders of America did not see humanity as capable of perfecting itself, which is why they placed limits on the power of government in the Constitution. The cult of the Left sees the Constitution very differently and the consequence of adopting their view has been leading steadily toward tyranny in America.
Professor Charles Kessler explains this clearly in a portion of his appearance with Mark Levin a few nights ago. Pay particular attention to the last two minutes of the video for some real enlightenment on the Left’s view of the world.
Kessler says that Leftism is really like a medieval religion with an inquisition, an index of forbidden books and thoughts, and a “moral patrol” to ensure no one reads forbidden books or expresses forbidden thoughts.
All three of those qualities are manifested today by the Left on social media. The “moral patrol” on social media can be called the morality police that put those who express forbidden thoughts into ‘Twitter jail,’ or ‘Facebook jail.’
The inquisition can be seen unfolding through the flurry of hostile ‘tweets’ viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with the Left, especially if they can characterize it as ‘offensive.’ The attacks are consistently low on substance and high on overwhelmingly emotional accusations of ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ ‘Islamophobia,’ ‘Anti-LBGTQ+,’ etcetera, etcetera, which make up the lexicon of forbidden words and thoughts.
However, these qualities of Leftism are not unique or restricted to social media. As has been seen particularly in Portland, Oregon with the dangerous antics of Antifa, the Left’s morality police on the street will enforce their decrees with violence against innocents.
It is evident the Left is so entrenched in their completely illogical and unreasonable positions that they can’t be argued out of them. So why should conservatives continue to bring logic and reason to the fore to refute the Left?
Reason Is Still Necessary to Combat the Unreasonable Left
Reason is absolutely necessary as a tool to combat the Left and their agenda, despite the fact that it will not convince a committed Leftist to abandon their faith in the cult of Progressivism. There are three key considerations favoring the use of reason against the unreasonable Left.
First, consider that not all Leftists are equally committed to the cause. Because it takes a large amount of blind faith to completely swallow the illogic of Leftism, there are those among them who can be convinced by solid reasonable evidence.
The evidence for this is found in many places online. Examples include the #walkaway movement filled with testimonies on YouTube and FB and Twitter of former Leftists who have “walked away” from that view, and encourage others to do so as well.
Another example is influential broadcaster Candace Owens, a black woman who was a young believer in the Leftist agenda and became a convert to conservatism a few years ago. She is at the forefront of a multitude of black conservatives expressing themselves with both emotion and reason online, some of whom have recently seen the light of conservativism.
Second, consider that there are uncommitted people who are listening and some are looking for reasons to get out of the middle of the road. In many cases, those people are also getting tired of being run over especially by the strident and incessant clamor of the Left in society.
These are the people who just wanted to live a peaceful, non-political life raising a family and perhaps gaining some relative prosperity in the process. That is until they found out that their kids were being forced to support the delusion of ‘transgender identity’ in the classroom of their public school.
These parents were living and enjoying life and just minded their own business. But now, the Left has begun to push into their own lives and that makes it their business, thus they are listening for ways to combat the Left.
Third, consider that it is always right to present the truth against falsehood even if the odds seem to be against you. That is the example provided by God in His Word to counter the greatest falsehood of all, the falsehood of hopelessness.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest truth in history which banishes the lie of hopelessness against the reality of sin. All people know and are bothered by the fact that in some way, they are imperfect and incomplete both without and within.
However, not all understand that this condition is really the inherent sin common to all. Some will react with a denial that there is a problem, even going so far as to unreasonably deny the existence of God, and abandoning any hope or effort to find the truth.
By the way, denying the existence of God is an unreasonable position. But that is a subject for another time.
Others will try almost anything to remedy their imperfections both physically and spiritually from cosmetic surgery to psychic “ascended masters,” without success. That leads to a sense of frustration and hopelessness.
However, the gospel presents the truth that there is hope in Jesus Christ and relief from the imperfection and destruction of sin is found for each of us through faith in His sacrifice on the cross. A sacrifice prompted by the perfect love of God to bring hope to humanity.
The truth that as you or I grow in faith, we can with renewed hope see the time when faith comes to completion and we are made perfect in Christ. That hope is one good reason among many to accept the gospel truth.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
A very revealing transcript from an internal “town hall” meeting at the New York Times was reported on in the Friday, August 16th, 2019 issue of Newsbusters online. The transcript reveals two Leftist principles combining to herald a new and alarming era in the history of the Times and perhaps in mainstream journalism as well.
One of those principles is well known to conservatives. The other is not as recognized, but it is a very important, and dangerous, weapon of the Left.
The Poorly Hidden Principle: Journalistic Bias
It is hardly surprising that the Leftmedia is extremely biased against President Trump. This journal has covered the topic of Leftist bias in journalism on several occasions.
In fact, the transcript of this N.Y. Times internal meeting shows the same level of focused bias revealed by CNN in Project Veritas undercover videos from 2017. In those videos, a producer at CNN, John Bonifield, was asked about the cable network’s seeming obsession with Trump and the Russian ‘collusion’ narrative.
The producer gave an example of just how much CNN was focusing on the Russia narrative:
The CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, he said, good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.
The Executive Editor of the N.Y. Times, Dean Baquet, couldn’t have given a more fitting example of the same bias against the President than the way he started the meeting.
Executive Editor Dean Baquet began his remarks by boasting about coverage of Russian collusion conspiracy theories. “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. …to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years.” Baquet declared “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story.”
There you have it, folks, straight from the horse’s mouth. The most revered newspaper in the nation, if not the world, was laser-focused on the Russian ‘collusion delusion’ and then, along came Mueller and “his” report and the goal of taking out Trump was dashed.
This focus wasn’t for the sake of simply reporting the facts. This pervasive phony story from the Leftmedia extended into every part of both Trump and anyone remotely associated with him.
The lynchpin of the Left’s effort to destroy Trump was the Russia-collusion hoax, and that has now been effectively countered by the truth reluctantly presented by Mueller’s testimony. A trustworthy unbiased newspaper would do two things.
They would apologize for their false reporting and vow to get back to real news without the goal of removing the President from office. The N.Y. Times doesn’t qualify as trustworthy or unbiased, so of course, they used the rest of the internal meeting to instead look for another way of falsely condemning President Trump.
The Emerging Principle: Omnipresent Pseudo-Racism
The meeting went on to explore what direction their attacks against the President should now take. The answer came from another high-level staffer who challenged Baquet about his reluctance to use the word “racist” against Trump, and frankly wanted the Times to cry “racism” about everything!
This staffer question in general caught a lot of attention:
“I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.”
There are two critical statements made by this staffer. The first is that he feels “like racism is in everything,” and should be the basis for their reporting on science and culture and simply national news.
This staffer is an excellent example of what comes out of the American university system today. He is reflecting the mantra of “systemic racism” that has infected the academic Left for 60+ years.
The second statement shows the essence of almost all modern history teaching in the public school system for the last half-century and is the basis for his belief that racism is in ‘everything.’ His belief is that America itself was founded on ‘racism and white supremacy,’ and continues to exist as a racist nation today!
This strategy of branding the President as racist goes all the way back to the campaign of 2015-16 when candidate Trump began to speak of the problem of illegal aliens flooding America. The Left claims to this day that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and criminals then, which was a bald-faced lie then and is such today.
Trump specifically criticized the rampant criminalactivities committed by illegal aliens coming across the U.S.-Mexico border, many of whom are Mexican nationals.
The same fraudulent charge of racism continues to be tossed out regularly by the Left concerning the statements the President made after the Charlottesville, Virginia protest that turned violent. Let’s set the record straight on that lie with this video from Prager University.
Thus, the narrative that the President is ‘racist’ is not a new tactic by the Left. However, the Times seems to believe that if they just keep repeating it enough and assigning this pseudo-racism as a motive for everything American, their blind readers will believe it.
They are probably correct about their most loyal readers. However, they also hope that some others who only casually follow the news will also believe this lie.
It becomes apparent that the media push for the remaining years of the Trump presidency will focus on this kind of pseudo-racism. However, since the word ‘racism’ itself has been vastly overused by the Leftmedia, it is becoming drained of real meaning.
After all, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist. Which is why this staffer, and the Leftmedia as well, are also using the words “white supremacy” and “white nationalism,” more often in place of simply screaming ‘racist’ at Trump and his supporters.
The only counter to this deceptive strategy is to call it out by showing the real truth as often as can be done. The few true journalists who will encounter these Leftist charges in the next few years should be certain they challenge them directly to produce facts, not false statements, in support of their false allegations.
If this doesn’t happen, then we as Americans must directly challenge the media itself and demand to know why not. The pseudo-racism of the Left must not become entrenched in society any more than it already is now.
This will likely become a repetitive and tedious task for anyone who tries to do it. It will take determination and grit to withstand and counter the Left, especially on the big social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
The Left’s cry of ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ is being heaped upon Trump and his supporters regardless of their ethnicity will continue to be employed to intimidate conservatives. That may be seen even this weekend in Portland, Oregon when the group “Patriot Prayer” and others come for a hopefully peaceful “Anti Antifa” rally.
This has already sparked some reaction from the “Rose City Antifa” group. I pray there is no violence there like the kind from Leftist Antifa thugs in June against Andy Ngo at another Portland demonstration.
The push of the Left to say Trump or any and all of his supporters are racist or white nationalists will be vicious, and my advice is twofold. First, don’t do this alone. We need the strength and encouragement of others who will stand along with us.
There are strong conservative voices on both Twitter and Facebook, as well as some new ones in the media like One America News, and they are making some headway. There are also alternate online sites such as Parler that won’t censor conservatives and where allies can be found.
Secondly, and most important, lean heavily upon faith in the LORD. Call to Him in prayer and study the teachings of His Word in the Scriptures so that heavenly strength can augment our earthly efforts toward what is right and true.
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Ephesians 4:25 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Verison, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Last year following the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida I wrote an article about the Consitution being non-negotiable for America. The reactions from the Left to the recent shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio have prompted a more complete analysis of that subject.
The last article in this journal focused more on the President’s words in the wake of those horrible events. The focus shifts here to a larger part of the picture, the integrity of the Constitution itself.
The Integrity of the Constitution Is at Stake
The English word “integrity,” has a commonly understood meaning similar to “honorable,” or of good moral character. However, there is a lesser-known meaning of the word which is,
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:
It is this particular kind of integrity of the United States Constitution that is threatened today. I refer, of course, to the renewed attacks on the 2nd Amendment because of the recent mass shootings.
There is little doubt that the goal of the Left is to banish the 2nd Amendment with its troubling [to the Left] individual citizen’s “right to bear arms.” The newest ‘limits’ they wish to place upon this right are simply tracking points toward that goal.
What is not understood by many is the full consequence of tossing the 2nd, should the Left be allowed to continue this narrative. Whether the Left realizes this or not is irrelevant because the result is inevitable.
The fact is that any repeal of the 2nd would result in shattering the integrity of the Constitution itself. Moreover, this is uniquely true of any one of the first ten Constitutional Amendments, better known as the “Bill of Rights.”
Repealing Any Part of the Bill of Rights Would Destroy the Constitution
To gain some further insight into this, examine the reason the first ten Amendments were proposed. It is found in the preamble prior to listing the Amendments themselves.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
From top left clockwise: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson
The framers came to the realization that without some declaration of American’s individual and unbreakable basic rights, the powers granted to the government could be used by future leaders to usurp such rights. The phrase ‘restrictive clauses’ was intended to mean restricting the power of the state, not the power of the individual.
That is evident in the wording of each one of the Bill of Rights, for they speak of what the government can’t do while asserting the rights of the individual citizen. Should any of them be removed the cascade of consequences would inevitably devastate the other parts and do what the founders most feared, increase the power of the state over the citizen.
It is important to examine the rights in the Bill of Rights and understand the inter-connectedness of each and that should one be swept away by the winds of the Left, the rest will fall sooner or later. The only course is to insist upon the integrity of the Constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
The Rights in the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is a profound and wise document, and it deserves being read in the original wording. If any reader wishes to do so, it can be accessed online here: https://constitution.com/bill-rights/.
In this meager attempt to make the essence of the document a bit clearer, these are my plain-spoken “Bill of Rights.”
The First Amendment mentions five distinct rights: 1. Congress can’t restrict freedom of religious belief or practice., 2. Congress can’t halt freedom of speech. 3. Congress can’t restrict freedom of the press 4. Congress can’t stop the citizens from peacefully assembling, and 5. Congress must allow people to petition the government for a “redress of grievances.” That is, the government must listen to the complaints of the citizens.
The Second Amendment: The government can’t infringe upon a citizen’s right to private ownership of firearms.
The Third Amendment: The government can’t force anyone to house military forces on their own property.
The Fourth Amendment: The government can’t search a citizen and take their property/or arrest them without probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment also delineates five specific rights: 1. The government can’t hold or imprison someone for a serious crime without an indictment from a Grand Jury unless it happens during military service in wartime. 2. The government can’t put anyone on trial for the same crime more than once. 3. The government can’t make anyone testify against themselves 4. An individual accused of a crime has the right of the “due process” procedures of the law. 5. The government can’t take private property for public use without paying a fair price for it.
The Sixth Amendment, like the Fifth, deals with the rights of the individual accused of a crime. Four specific rights are noted here: 1. The accused is entitled to a trial by an impartial jury and the trial must be swift and public. 2. The accused has the right to a lawyer for his defense 3. The accused has the right to face his accusers. 4. The accused has the right to produce witnesses for his case.
The Seventh Amendment: In lawsuits seeking more than an award of twenty dollars, the government can’t deny a right to trial by a jury whose decision is final.
The Eighth Amendment restricts what the government can do in criminal cases. There are three rights declared here: 1. the government can’t punish the accused by demanding an excessive amount of bail, 2. Nor can they impose excessive fines on the guilty 3. Nor can they execute cruel and unusual punishment upon the guilty.
The Ninth Amendment: The rights mentioned in the Constitution do not deny other human rights.
The Tenth Amendment: The Federal government can’t exceed the rights given to it in the Constitution, and any rights not mentioned in the Constitution go to the states and the individual.
I am neither a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, although I do know and have read the Constitution several times. Moreover, I have learned from many others who are such experts.
Here is one example concerning the 2nd Amendment from Prager University,
With that caution, I believe these form a reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, however roughly expressed. Together they virtually scream of one overriding principle, that the individual citizen’s rights are of first importance.
The Bill of Rights Are Connected by the Idea that the Individual Citizen’s Rights are Paramount
The founders took great care to ensure the individual citizen’s rights in three key areas. The first was in the area of personal expression in various forms such as speech, in the press, and religious expression.
The second area was the right to personal safety and defense against even a government turned tyrannical. It was meant as a guarantee that other rights could be defended by the citizen should an attempt be made to take those rights away.
The third area was the right to be considered innocent of any crime unless one is proven guilty. This is the bedrock of American justice.
All of these ideas were unique in world history at the time, and remain rare in the world even today. Without all of them, the whole Constitution loses integrity and the citizen shrinks in importance.
The Leftist goal is advanced whenever individual rights are diminished in America. For at bottom, the individual is only relevant in the Socialist Left’s world to work for the goals of the group, as dictated, of course, from a central-planning edifice ruled by Leftist elites.
These ground-level principles of the Bill of Rights work to ensure individual liberty while evoking individual responsibility. Which of these principles might be considered the most important is debatable.
Many would say the right to bear arms in defense against enemies is most important. After all, if a citizen can’t defend his or her rights against a threat, no rights can’t be exercised freely at all.
However, others might say that the right to free speech is most important because if one can’t defend individual rights verbally or in writing, eventually those rights will be taken through government power.
Moreover, if the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is taken away, then the rights of speech and defense can be abrogated with arbitrary accusations of crimes by the government authorities. One doesn’t get a weapon or a forum while in jail.
The truth is that fervent battles against liberty are being waged by the Left within every part of American society. Battles aimed right at the heart of the Constitution’s protection of individual citizen’s freedoms.
The First Amendment is under attack constantly by those who would banish Christianity from the public square, as well as attacks by Antifa and the SJW’s of the Left. The Second Amendment is under assault by Leftist media and politicians, especially after the recent mass shootings.
The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is constantly undermined by the selective assignment of guilt first by the Left whenever the President or his supporters are involved.
America simply can’t afford to erode and possibly lose any of these bastions of individual liberty! The integrity of the Constitution must remain intact or the whole building of our free society will fall.
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
The recent mass shootings in El Paso, TX, and Dayton, Ohio this past weekend have once again turned the political spotlight on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Left always has its attacks primed for these eventualities, and as usual, their arguments are forceful demonstrations of folly.
Of course, that does not discourage the Left from screechings at conservatives, directly blaming President Trump, to calling for completely unconstitutional measures that would demonstrably violate the 2nd Amendment. None of those actions are unexpected from the Leftist core believers as well as their political shills.
This journal has warned before of the danger of trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. In this instance, the danger may be taking a surprising twist.
What is surprising, and alarming, is the reaction of some conservative law-makers and frankly, some statements from President Trump himself. He gave a critical speech about the shootings and gave some proposals which are ostensibly tailored to help reduce or prevent such horrific happenings in the future.
However, before I delve into the President’s words, I need to confront the absolute false narrative of the Left that Trump is a racist white supremacist and responsible for the shootings. Those on the Left, at whatever level of government or media they exist, are simply lying to advance their evil agenda.
Trump’s speech more clearly than ever should have satisfied the most ardent critics that he is not a racist or a white supremacist. He could not have more forcefully denounced both claims on a comprehensive level, but that doesn’t stop the malicious Left from lying about him and trying to silence him.
Not only has President Trump never said the racist things the Left keeps lying about, but his actions also demonstrate that he is not racist in any way. He spoke with sincerity, grace, and firmness in his response to the shootings.
His speech contained many statements that were both correct and consoling to the victims of these shootings. However, some of the proposed “solutions” are cause for real concern.
A Warning About The Mental Health Warning
President Trump called for legal action which would deny the possession of firearms to people who are determined to be ‘mentally ill,’ in some manner. This certainly sounds like a reasonable proposition, however, as with many such measures, it is far more complicated and fraught with danger than most realize.
The first problem is akin to almost any type of government ‘solution’ proposed to almost any problem in society, the problem of abuse. It is not stretching the truth to say that for most laws if someone wants to abuse it in their favor, they can find a way to get what they want.
There are already forms of such laws denying firearms to those deemed mentally ill in certain places around America. One example is Florida’s “Baker Act” law, which provides for temporary commitment to a mental institution up to 72 hours with a minimum of due process.
The Baker Act is an existing law that provides for temporary institutionalization of individuals who meet certain criteria. It can only be used by specific authorized persons, including judges, mental health professionals, law enforcement personnel, and doctors. More importantly, the law is limited by the fact that those officials must have sound evidence suggesting that the individual might meet the Act’s definition for mental illness. In addition, he must pose a risk of harm to himself or others – or demonstrate self-neglect.
With this existing statute, there are at least some reasonable legal safeguards determining who can be subject to being held in custody. For instance,
people cannot be involuntarily institutionalized simply because they’re acting strangely, refuse to seek psychiatric examinations, or have occasional mood swings or outbursts.
The questions looming over this new proposal is ‘On what basis, and by whom, is someone to be declared too mentally ill to keep freedom and their 2nd Amendment rights?’ Moreover, if the existing measures are not adequate now, how far is the government willing to go to in this area?
Perhaps more frightening and direct measures will be deemed necessary. Which brings us to another, and more concerning subject, the idea of so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws.
The Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
‘Red Flag’ gun laws function as gun confiscation orders. In his speech, President Trump called them “extreme risk protection orders.”
They are designed to deny access to, or possession, of firearms to those deemed at extreme risk to commit violence with those firearms. They could be deemed as an ‘at extreme risk’ individual according to certain ‘red flags’ which those close to the person had determined might be dangerous.
John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on ‘Red Flag’ laws commented on the nature of these laws during an interview on “The Buck Sexton Show,” from August 5, 2019.
You’re trying to predict whether somebody’s going to go and commit a crime. …It’s kind of like the old Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report,” without the psychics.
This moves beyond the mental illness warning criteria to include things such as criminal history when evaluating whether or not someone should have a firearm. However, as Mr. Lott also points out, we already have access to criminal records and felonies as well as some misdemeanors already disqualify a person from owning a gun, so this is superfluous.
The potential for abuse lies in the additional legal measures these laws propose in order to confiscate someone’s guns. Some have suggested that simple arrests, even without a conviction, should be considered as possible ‘red flags’ to trigger the seizure of firearms.
The abuse comes into play easily when, for example, a disgruntled spouse or employee is the target. They can be essentially flagged as a threat to commit violence on the say-so of someone who doesn’t like them and is looking for an excuse to punish the offending party.
Some might ask, ‘Won’t these individuals be assessed by mental health professionals?’ Even if that is true, the record of mental health professionals in predicting future criminal behavior is abysmal. As author Rob Morse notes,
Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. Psychiatrists have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.
Moreover, this could easily result in making situations worse rather than better. Morse goes on to make this salient point.
Concealed carry holders are several times less likely than the police to shoot innocent people. Who is at risk when the police knock in the dark of night to confiscate legally owned firearms?
The danger of this becoming law is rapidly coming upon us, as Senator Lindsey Graham is already proposing ‘red-flag’ legislation. No details of his plan are available at present, except that he makes a point of mentioning that Trump seemed ‘supportive’ of it.
The Hate Crime ‘Death Penalty’ Threat
This is perhaps the most disturbing part of President Trump’s address. In a brief but powerful sentence, he called for the death penalty for both mass shooters those who commit “hate crimes.”
Admittedly, there is little time in such a short speech to elaborate on the meaning of this declaration. No real details about the proposal were presented there.
The danger lies within the very nature of the ‘hate crime’ designation. It is far too ambiguous a label to use for this extremely important issue.
…a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”
The FBI is quick to add that hate itself is not a crime, and thus they are committed to also protecting a person’s right to free speech. To be blunt, the FBI has not inspired a lot of trust among regular Americans since the exposure of their spying operations against a sitting president and the hate their operatives have displayed against Trump and his supporters.
So please forgive me if the assurances of the FBI do not really reassure me at this point. Moreover, the expansion of hate crime accusations and arrests in many nations are alarming, to say the least.
In fact, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court actually declared that certain types of religious speech qualify as hate crimes. In this case, it involved biblical speech against teaching homosexuality in public schools.
Should such offenses as these be punishable by death? Or would that only apply to certain groups in society, perhaps of the Christian variety?
Lest one think that this could not happen in America, consider this. In 2012, just seven years ago, no one was even considering banning people from social media for ‘misgendering’ a transgender man who claimed he was a woman.
Real Problems and Solutions Are Ignored
The true tragedy of this is that there are real problems with the amount of gun violence overall, and some real solutions to them which are being completely ignored while potshots are being taken at the 2nd Amendment, pun intended.
For example, in just the cases of mass shootings in the United States, one factor is more common in all of them since Colombine in 1999. The environment of the home and family.
If there’s a thread, it’s young men whose biological father was missing in their lives. After the Parkland school massacre in Florida, the Heritage Foundation cited a study showing that among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Most, according to psychologist Peter Langman, an expert on school shooters, came from homes that also experienced infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence and child abuse.
It’s not racism, not ‘white supremacy,’ not even mental health, video games, and certainly not those who support the 2nd Amendment the most, law-abiding gun owners! It’s the absence of a father in the home.
Isn’t it strange how this particular metric is also a great predictor of criminal activity as well as mentally disturbed behavior? For instance, witness these statistics,
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
Perhaps our political leaders should focus more on that very real problem if they aim to slow gun violence and violence itself in society. In fact, a large number of problems could be ameliorated if more families remained intact, but that is fodder for another time.
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
It’s another Sunday morning of crowd seekers searching for forgiveness as they rush through the eye of the needles around the world. I, too, came to find my eternal gateway to a place called heaven’s home. I walked across the side street onto the freshly paved parking area extended for convenience. The air reeked of an odor as Satan’s evil sin blew in the breeze. Little elderly women held on to their nicely brushed hairdo as they dashed in front of cars while others ran to find their pew. I reached the entrance of the church and could smell the difference between Satan’s musty humidity and the fragrance of Christ living inside the vestibule.
I wondered when the
dress codes at church changed because men used to don three-piece suits with
cuffed trousers and tacked ties. They held the doors for those feminine dressed
ladies in their finest ensembles. After the church service, everyone mingled
with each other to share the week’s news over a cup of coffee and pastries.
Those were better times when men talked about the drought and ladies conversed
about canning tomatoes. It’s another world away now as I vaguely remember my own
The church was clearly
a refreshing place to sit in the comfort of Jesus Christ. I wondered if it was
just me or did the rest of the congregation feel the Holy Spirit? Was their only
intention of attending church to just rush in with the hope of forgiveness
handed to them? Satan’s shining sin glows everywhere, you know, but he’s so
exposed in God’s house.
Our world of sin is
never so obvious nor blatantly displayed as it is today. I will push the
envelope by saying schemes and gimmickry have run to the forefront. It’s like
running for the presidency. Subliminal ice cubes in a glass spelling
“SEX” in bold letters was an impressive way to relay the message to
the public. Most movies flaunt “R” and “X” ratings which have become the norm
in this distorted society. We catch up with friends on social media only to be
subjected to jokes and articles about the male and female anatomy. What
happened to sex and our bodies being personal and sacred?
1 Corinthians 6:12-13
12 “I have the right to do anything,”
you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but
I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the
stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not
meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
But as far back as
the Roman Empire, sexual exploitation was Satan’s key denominator. John the
Baptist contested, in public, King Herod’s lack of discipline for he replaced
his wife with her sister, who was a younger, more vivacious aristocrat. John
was beheaded, consequently, as requested by Herod’s daughter. Sex was the
ultimate sin which began the betrayal of God’s words. Kings and Queens fell
like dominoes in the world’s wake of Satan’s shining sin. Sodom and Gomorrah
suffered God’s divine judgment because of prolific prostitution and
degree of accountability exists in sin by exploiting sex outside of God’s marriage.
Adulterated sex is a gateway to Satan’s castle. If one relishes breaking the
laws of God, I must ask, “Where will it end?” When you break one of God’s cherished
laws, the rest will seem obsolete. More men and women today need to hold to
God’s commitments because Satan, without a doubt, has made sex a sport – a game
with damning results.
Satan uses his
power of persuasion to convince us it’s all right to sin against God. Whether you
have a lack of willpower, insecurity, or mental illness, sex outside of
marriage is Satan’s invitation to give you a life of perversion, long-lasting guilt,
and recordable sin. It changes personal values and corrupts the mind where
cleanliness and innocence once prevailed.
1 Peter 5:8-9
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your
adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may
devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings
are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.”
In the beginning
of this blog, I spoke of dress codes. A lack of proper attire invites Satan into
the mind. His shining sin, sex, makes it appear acceptable though, doesn’t it? As
history repeats itself, God seized empires because of this sin, and improper sex
was the root of their evil.
Be alert and be
informed for God knows our thoughts before we act on them. Satan lurks on every
page of life. He is in the movies and programs we watch, and the commercials
impeding clothes. Sex sells! The satanic air you breathe, whether in church, at
home, or in public lures the perfumes from afar, tempting the spirits within
I pray this world, one day, will wake and beg for forgiveness from such absurd things. Straying from God is like being dropped in an ocean of sin – you will eventually drown! Your life will be forever changed when you find Christ. Pray to fill your spirit with hope and God’s true love!
I begin with a note of full disclosure that I am an unabashed fan of almost all things Star Trek. In fact, I have been a fan since I viewed the original series when it ran the first time.
My favorite character from that series has remained my favorite Star Trek character of all; ‘Mr. Spock,’ masterfully portrayed by the late Leonard Nimoy. I was enthralled as a youth by Spock’s embrace of logical thinking and calm clarity in very sticky situations.
Among the multitude of insightful statements made by ‘Mr. Spock’ one, in particular, seemed to apply quite well to the current state of mind of the Left in our society. It is from one of my favorite episodes with the title, “The Squire of Gothos.”
Spock is verbally confronted by an almost omnipotent, yet rather childish, alien being known as “Squire Trelane” who has captured the Enterprise crew.
TRELANE TO SPOCK: I don’t know if I like your tone. It’s most challenging. That’s what you’re doing, challenging me?
SPOCK: I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose.
The two phrases, “intellect without discipline,” and “power without constructive purpose” describe the Leftist mentality and goals to a tee. As conservatives, we should oppose the Left and forcefully state what ‘Spock’ declared to ‘Trelane,’ “We object to you!”
The Left Epitomizes ‘Intellect without discipline’
The prevailing mentality of the modern Left is the epitome of ‘intellect without discipline.’ On just about any subject that requires a modicum of clear thinking and logic, Leftists have zero discipline.
Intellectual discipline demands at least an attempt to be accurate and truthful when presenting arguments, and the Left routinely ignores this principle in every area. A prime example was recently presented via the voluminously ignorant Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex [D-NY] commenting about illegal aliens in government detention.
In a tweet she remarked:
“The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border,…That is exactly what they are. They are concentration camps.”
Note that AOC didn’t simply compare the temporary border detention centers to concentration camps. She literally called them concentration camps.
This level of ignorance combined with defiant confidence in spite of the truth is evidence of a completely undisciplined intellect. That is particularly objectionable in someone charged to represent American citizens.
Examples of this abound among the Left in every arena of life. The whole “climate change” hysteria is a hoax that demonstrates undisciplined intellect on a massive scale, all for political payoffs.
The video reveals the lengths to which ‘climate change’ advocates will go to foster their false and destructive narrative upon everyone else. As conservatives, we rightly object to this demonstration of ‘intellect without discipline,’ and the inevitable harm that results.
However, there is another aspect which needs to be explored. That is, what motivates the Left to push for nonsensical and demonstrably destructive changes in all facets of human existence.
As it happens in human affairs, the motive at the bottom is power and control. Make no mistake, for the Left, it is power without any constructive purpose whatsoever. In fact, the power they seek is inherently destructive to Western society and freedom itself.
The Left Seeks the Power that Destroys
It is no secret that those on the Left seek ever-increasing influence and power within Western nations, as well as globally. Such efforts are aimed at establishing the authority of the state in a Marxist/Socialist manner in the assurance that this would herald the illusionary utopian society of Leftist imaginations.
There is a substantial factual difficulty with the purposes of the Left. At every point in time and at every place on the planet where Socialism has been established, the results are always destructive.
The most prominent example of this today is, of course, the devastation experienced in Venezuela. What was once the most prosperous country in South America, with the largest oil reserves in the world, is now reduced to the status of the third-world nation whose people are starving.
Aside from chubby dictator Nicolas Maduro and his fellow elites, the Venezuelan people are running out of food and medical supplies. In their starving desperation, citizens have resorted to breaking into zoos to slaughter and eat the also malnourished animals; buffalo, pigs and horses are top choices on the menu.
Moreover, we should not forget the horrific destruction of Socialism throughout history, most notably the bloody tally of the 20th century. It is noteworthy that many on the Left specialize in denouncing Nazism while forgetting that Hitler’s ideology was simply another form of Socialism.
Understand that Socialism has various pedigrees, but the same evil end. The Nazi party in Germany was officially known as the “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Together with Germany’s National Socialism, the Communist Socialists such as the old USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Communist China have racked up a body count of over 150 million people!
If one took a cursory look at any portion of life or any sector of culture, a plethora of destructive examples rear their heads in constitutional rights, education, science, politics, entertainment, media, religion, marriage, and the family. Consequently, the question becomes, ‘How do conservatives best object to the use of ‘undisciplined intellect’ towards no ‘constructive purpose?’
How to Object to the Left
I believe the most effective way to object to the Left is with determined, steadfast and immovable opposition to their destructive aims. We must do so with a manifestly disciplined intellect and striving toward a truly constructive purpose.
This means employing a disciplined intellect to invariably counter the Left’s fallacies with actual facts. It means never letting them go unchallenged when making their fraudulent claims.
In order for this to happen, we can no longer remain uninformed or unequipped to counter the destructive squawking of Socialists. A continuing innocent ignorance will only serve to empower the Left toward its destructive goals.
This also requires the ability to engage Leftist arguments in the open arena of social media. Unfortunately, the social media giants of our time are awash with the vapid ideas of Leftists who control the most sought-after platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, making it difficult to have opposing views published and widely disseminated.
There are four possible responses to such Leftist efforts to censor and banish conservatism from social media. One is to attempt creating a new social media platform allowing a free exchange of ideas, however, that task is beyond most of us but a select and daring few.
The second response is to exclusively support and use alternative social media that operate with freedom of speech, meaning to abandon the use of entities such as Facebook altogether. The prospects for success in that venture are only slightly greater than creating one’s own platform from scratch.
The third response is a hybrid of utilizing alternative media as well as the social media goliaths of today. This is a more promising alternative, though I believe it is still short of the real solution.
The fourth response is likely the most effective in both the short and long run. It is a push to break up the social media monopolizing of the Left by advocating legal action.
Rather than take unnecessary space to explain the justification and need for this, I’ll let Bill Whittle lay out the case in the following video.
A thousand more words would not suffice to comprehensively catalog all the incidents of conservative voices being banned or demonetized by the huge social media machine. This must be fought with determined effort until the goal of a truly free internet is realized.
The most precious item destroyed by Leftist ideals is individual liberty. The Socialist Left would rather each individual ‘know their place’ as part of a slave-like society forfeiting all rights to the omnipotent government.
Conservatism inherently believes in individual freedom under representative government accountable to its citizens. Our solution to the purveyance of “bad” destructive speech is to encourage more “good” constructive speech and be free to announce and support it publically.
It is not our aim to ban or shut down Leftist voices whether on social media or not. It is instead our aim to ensure an open and upfront debate in the marketplace of ideas.
Sooner or later [hopefully sooner] we can realize this aim, and a renewed hope for the future can come to light, with God’s help. As was said long ago, we should
pray as if everything depends on God, work as if everything depends on you.
Therefore, with redoubled effort and conviction, let us stridently stand and declare to the Left, “We object to you!” And let us lean upon the LORD who is with us to proclaim and act upon the truth.
So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a piece of legislation with the deceptive title of “The Equality Act.” This title is not simply an inaccurate representation of the act itself, it is, in fact, a large step toward codifying strict societal inequality.
HR-5 is the designation given to “The Equality Act,” which was passed on May 17, 2019, in the House. It now heads to the U.S. Senate where the prospects of passage are somewhat bleak.
However, this should not be taken as either the final word by the government nor as a solid victory if the legislation does not pass. HR-5 is a harmful expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes of people.
This effort is extremely dangerous and potentially deadly for the innocent victims of ‘trans-fraud’, the helpless children. Children whose lives will be needlessly traumatized and for almost half of them will result in death by their own hands.
Why Is This Happening Now?
This journal has recorded the steady progress of so-called ‘transgender rights’ movement in the current culture in several articles. What was once universally known as a serious mental illness has become enshrined as some sort of human ‘right’ in popular, leftist culture today.
The question which arises when considering the current in-your-face promotion of transgenderism is just how did this happen? Put another way, why is this complete about-face happening now, as compared to just seven years ago, when there was no political support for the issue and very little indication that the popular culture would embrace it?
Three key events since the end of 2012 which have enabled those in favor of ‘transgenderism’ to boldly crusade for a slice of the newly created additions to established human rights. The first was a little reported action in 2013 which granted a measure of legitimacy to ‘transgenderism.’
In the pre-2013 DSM-IV, anyone “identifying” as other than their biological gender had Gender Identity Disorder. As a “disorder,” it was a mental illness. Today, due to political and cultural pressure, the DSM-V calls this condition Gender Dysphoria. Such a classification is not considered a mental illness. Rather it is considered a kind of psychological discomfort and confusion. This is how mental illness can be masked as a difficult, but “normal,” reality.
The second was virtually a cultural event, well-publicized and celebrated on the Left. It was the revealing and popularizing of a very famous celebrity as a ‘transgendered’ person in 2015.
Transgenderism rocketed to social popularity with the ‘transition’ of Bruce Jenner from a male to appearing as the ‘female’ Caitlyn Jenner. He appeared on the cover of Vanity Fairmagazine’s, July 2015, issue. He was also celebrated on ESPN’s Espy Awardslater in 2015. Since then he has greatly enhanced the cultural status of the transgender movement.
The third and final event was the granting of federal government approval of the ‘transgender rights’ cause. This was accomplished by former President Barack Obama in 2016.
The Obama administration is sending out an edict today [5/13/2016] to every school district in the country, insisting they open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to all children, regardless of sex, or risk federal discrimination lawsuits and yanked federal funds. Schools must treat children as transgender and thus entitled to open facilities access as soon as parents say they are, not after a medical diagnosis or birth certificate change.
These events and a relentless campaign of Leftist intimidation and virtue-signaling have brought America to the “Equality Act.” The consequences of passing this tyrannical insanity are dire and reach far beyond sexuality and gender confusion.
Tyrannical Inequality Is Inevitable Under the “Equality Act”
Should the “Equality Act” become law, inequality and total tyranny will follow sooner rather than later. In fact, various forms of tyrannical behavior are afoot even now and it is targeting traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.
One of the most recent examples of such action occurred this past Wednesday, June 12, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Watch as a street preacher of the gospel is denied his freedom of speech and religion by the state.
Note that it was the peaceful preacher who was the victim of harassment and assault, yet he was the only one arrested. This demonstration of force by the police violated this man and his small group’s rights and manifested both tyranny and inequality by their unequal enforcement of the law.
This man was guilty of nothing except offering the gospel of Jesus Christ to a group of gay pride demonstrators. Perhaps the most salient point in the video was made by one Christian commenting to the camera after the pastor was arrested.
We did not form a mob, a mob was formed against us.
This is the consistent method of the Left on virtually any subject nowadays, especially concerning the LGBT issue. Form a “mob” of one kind or another and attack by emoting rather than engage in reasonable discussion.
However, the facts, in this case, uphold the actions in the video, and we will see this descend upon America with force should the “Equality Act” become established as law. Here are some of the disastrous consequences that would follow.
the category of male or female) would be altered to include (undefined) “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” everywhere the word “sex” appears in federal non-discrimination law. …
It would force compliance of the radical (and lunatic) LGBT agenda into every person’s life – in businesses, public accommodations, jury selection, schools, hospitals and clinics, social life, even churches!
It writes into federal law radical concepts (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”) and creates a protected class for people with a psychiatric disorder (“gender dysphoria”).
It gives only minimal, vague definitions for the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” guaranteeing that legal chaos will ensue. For example, many radicals consider pedophilia a “sexual orientation” – which could end up becoming protected!
Goodbye to freedom of religion on LGBT issues. Many have noted that religious speech critical of “sexual orientation and gender identity” could be considered unlawful discrimination. Not even churches will be exempt as they could be considered “public accommodations” (“a place or establishment that provides … gathering…; any establishment that provides a good, service, or program”).
The Most Vulnerable Are the Potential Victims
Anyone who has followed the continual push for so-called ‘transgender rights’ knows that it is the most vulnerable among us, the children, who are the targeted victims. These advocates are not content with adults mutilating their bodies in obedience to signals from an ill mind.
Thus it is the children who are placed as priority candidates for insane actions because mentally disturbed adults must justify their fetish-like obsession. These adults, in some cases even the parents are, wittingly or no, targeting their toddlers for the destruction of their psyche and a short-lived, hellish existence on earth.
Why would any truly loving parent visit this on their young children? The answer is that no loving parent in their right mind would subject their children to such abuse.
A prime example of this is taking place now in the U.K. where a mentally ill couple is engaged in helping their 5-year-old son ‘transition’ to become a girl. This couple consists of a 21-year-old heterosexual woman and her companion, a 27-year-old woman named “Greg” who has ‘transitioned’ to the appearance of a man.
Greg claims their five-year-old son is “adamant she is a girl,” citing the boy’s affinity for dressing up as a princess from the popular Disney film “Frozen.” “They say it’s cruel we let her wear a dress but is it not more cruel to do nothing when you’ve got a kid who’s so adamant she’s a girl she’s ripping her hair off and banging her head off the walls?” said Greg.
What seems obvious is that this child of only five years has imagined he wants to become a girl and the ‘parents’ have never discouraged this, in fact, they have only encouraged and strengthened his nascent resolve. The instability and insecurity of the adults are condemning this child to a horrible life without a chance of even experiencing childhood.
Moreover, sane and loving parents would respond to this boy’s angry displays with a firm hand and the hair-pulling and head-banging would cease. If the behavior continued afterward, the next step would be to seek medical help and treatment for possible mental illness from a responsible doctor who knows the facts about children’s whims.
…the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress.
However, that will never happen because it would mean the parents would have to admit that they themselves are mentally ill and are inflicting their illness upon the child. Moreover, in the U.K. transgender ‘rights’ advocates are celebrated both politically and culturally dooming the boy ‘Jayden’ to grow up under enormous pressure to follow-though and begin harmful hormone treatments in a few years even if he changed his mind and decided against ‘transitioning.’
This is not a problem confined to Europe. There are various examples of such sentiment in America as well, as I wrote in a previous post.
There are also some in America specifically targeting children as young as 4 years old. This tactic began to surface about 3 years ago in custody battles during divorce proceedings.
Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. …“…first began hearing from distraught parents in this situation in 2016 and in 2017, I heard from seven families in as many different states in this situation. In all but one case the child was a 15 year-old girl who never had any sexual identity confusion prior to her parent’s divorce,” Cretella said. “The other case involved 4-year-old triplet boys whose mother desperately wanted a girl. The mother was a psychologist herself and had cross-dressed one of the boys for two years, insisting that it was his idea. In each of the seven cases the guardian ad litems and judges removed the right to medical consent and/or custody from the parent who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are not well-studied and thus the harmful side effects are also not well-known. The physical damage of these potent and potentially dangerous drugs was not considered by the judges or the mother in this case.
It is noteworthy that the punishment from the judge was aimed at the guardians or parents “who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”! States ranging from California to South Dakota have presented legislation which would make empower insanity and make normal, loving parents outlaws pitted against their children.
The “Equality Act” would ensure this disturbing behavior as legal nationwide and doom children as young as three or four to the vicious whims of adults who cannot grapple with biological realities. Parents who object would watch the child ripped from their arms and placed with others who were more in line with the Left and its demented views.
Our society has now come to a point of no return, a cultural crossing of the Rubicon with the ‘transgender’ movement and its implications. The “Equality Act” must be defeated in the Senate and if it [heaven forbid] reaches the President’s desk, it must be vetoed.
If not, there may come a time very soon when Christians of conscience will have to defy the law in order to save children and show the better way of Christ to them and to the lost and disturbed adults involved as well.
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:13-14 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
The first three parts of this critical series chronicled the alliance of the modern Leftist movements with Islamofascism in illegal immigration, politics, culture, and religion worldwide. This final part provides the answer to an unspoken question lurking in the background, “How did these seemingly disparate groups unite at all?”
The answer is found by examining the historical origins of both Islam and the Left. Within those origins will be discovered the most important factor that both groups hold in common and is an ancient and persistent enemy of both ideologies.
Origins of the Modern Left
The political and social Left as it is today has roots which stretch back to 1848, the date Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto. That document formed the basis for socialist thought which survives in the Leftist camp to this day.
In it, the two philosophers depicted all of history as a series of class struggles (historical materialism), and predicted that the upcoming proletarian revolution would sweep aside the capitalist system for good, making the workingmen the new ruling class of the world.
What Marx and Engels foresaw was not simply another revolution that toppled a tyrant. They saw a historical war between the economic and social ‘high’ and ‘low’ classes in which the low socio-economic class or proletariat upending the high socio-economic class called the bourgeoisie.
The object of this theoretical Marxist revolution was not the replacement of the bourgeoisie with the working class. It was instead the elimination of all economic class distinction by restricting access to capital to the state, i.e. the government.
Under this system, the government owns or controls the means of producing wealth, and redistributes the funds of those companies to the people regardless of the production of the individual worker. In theory, this means that the government takes “from each according to his ability,” and distributes the wealth produced, “to each according to his need.”
The huge economic problem with Marx and his followers’ scenario is that the government is not a real producer of wealth, it is a consumer of it. The big social problem is that Socialism disregards the individual and dismisses the capacity of the state to tend toward tyranny.
The most infamous disciple of Marx put his plan into action on a nationwide scale. Vladimir Lenin led the way almost 100 years after Marx was born with the Russian revolution of 1917.
This revolution created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR. The USSR fell apart after seven decades and the slaughter of 30 to 50 million of its own citizens trying to keep their Socialist Union afloat.
During the entirety of that period, the Left both praised and excused the Soviet Union for their tyranny. In fact, one of the current Democratic crop of presidential candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders [I-VT], was so enamored by the USSR that he spent his honeymoon in Moscow and came back with glowing reviews about his time there.
Sanders, along with the entirety of the Left in society, is still hopelessly in love with the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Like the battered spouse who insists there is nothing wrong with their abuser, Leftists cannot admit their adored Socialism is a fatally flawed system.
The most recent example of this is playing out before our eyes in Venezuela. Once the richest nation in South America, after two decades it has been reduced to a country of starving people who are in revolt against a corrupt dictator.
There are many reasons for the fact that Socialism itself is flawed and that Leftists are unable to admit this. Overall the socio-economic theory of Marx doesn’t comprehend economic law nor human fallenness, thus its failure is inherent in the system.
a member of the Arabic Quraish tribe from the West-Central part of the Arabian Peninsula in the region of present-day Mecca. …He claimed to receive a revelation from the archangel Gabriel in AD 610 to be a prophet to the Arabic peoples promoting monotheism and a belief in Allah.
The ‘revelation’ resulted in the writing of the Koran, the definitive holy book of Islam. The term Islamofascism doesn’t refer to the belief system but rather to the means of spreading this religious ideology.
From the beginning, Islam was spread primarily through conquest and forced ‘conversion.’ Muhammad began with the conquest of Mecca in AD 630, an event which is the basis for the holiday month of Ramadan.
Islam’s founder died just two years later. He never named a successor, which led to the divisions of Islam into certain sects, namely the Shia and Sunni branches.
Thus, Muhammad never saw the full extent of the Islamic conquest at its peak. That came many centuries later from AD 661 through AD 1922, over 1,300 years duration and through “Five Great Islamic Empires”.
During a part of this period, the land mass controlled by Islam grew to its peak and reached from India through all of the Middle East and Northern Africa, portions of eastern Europe and all of Spain. However, according to scholars, the greatest of the Islamic empires was the last, the Ottoman Empire.
A variety of reasons are given for designating the Ottoman Empire as the greatest of Islamic history, chief among them the fact that it lasted over 600 years, the longest period of any Islamic empire. The Ottoman Empire also bears the most importance and relevance to the current time.
That importance was achieved in 1453 with the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. Constantinople was the capital and greatest city of the Christian Byzantine Empire, a result of the Roman Empire splitting into West [Rome] and East [Byzantium], divisions centuries before.
The city was named after Emperor Constantine of Rome [AD 306-337], the first Imperial ruler to embrace Christianity. By 1453, the Western Empire had fallen and Constantinople was the last refuge of Christendom to hold out against Islam’s threat.
The city was an almost impregnable fortress of immense size that was only capable of being taken by siege over a prolonged period. It had survived multiple attempts by Muslim forces over hundreds of years before its final defeat.
The fall of Constantinople marked a period of almost 500 years of continuous control over all of the Middle East including present-day Israel and the second most important Christian city of the ancient world which is now Istanbul, the capital of Turkey.
Between the Left and Islamofascism, there is virtually no agreement on ideals and beliefs, with one large exception. Both have expressed hatred of Judaism and Christianity since the times of Marx and Muhammad.
Leftists and Islamofascists have always despised Judaism and Christianity
From the outset, the Marxist-Leninist Left has had no true place for religious belief in its philosophy and action. One could legitimately worship God as long as the place and practice were government approved.
The reason such ‘pure’ Socialism has for marginalizing faiths such as Judaism and Christianity is simple. Under a truly Marxist regime, no entity but the government can be recognized as the ultimate authority.
In the old Soviet Union, this was played out using government persecution to brutally shut down any Christian church not approved by the USSR. This is not as pervasive presently since the fall of the Iron Curtain after the Cold War.
However, in China, the repression of religion other than state approved is still rigorously enforced. This includes the repression even of the practice of Islam, as recent reports have shown.
The Chinese and North Korean regimes are harsh in particular to Christians. According to Soon Ok Lee, who escaped from North Korea after being imprisoned, Christians are referred to as “tailless animals” among the prison staff and are subjected to the harshest treatment in the prisons.
They were beaten more often than other prisoners and yet halfway through the beatings Soon saw that many believers:
would stand up… and begin to sing hymns and say, ‘Amen.’ The guards thought they were crazy and took them back to the electric torture room. I never saw any of the believers return from that room.
Islamofascism has no less of a heinous record of persecuting both Judaism and Christianity around the globe. Islamic law relegates both Jews and Christians to the status of enemies or within Islamic nations to second-class citizens known as dhimmi.
The obvious adversarial relationship between Islamic expansionists and the nation of Israel is ample evidence of Muslim animosity toward Judaism. That is why whenever one observes a large protest for ‘Palestinian liberation,’ one will also notice a sign or more declaring “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
To accomplish that goal, Israel would have to be removed from the map. Islamofascists see that goal as an imperative since Israel was once under Islamic rule.
Islamic ideology teaches that any place where Islam ever ruled is by divine right Islamic land forever. Therefore it is the duty of all faithful Muslims to wage Jihad to reclaim that land.
Nor are Christians less in danger from Islamofascism, for persecution on a massive scale, is taking place today against followers of Christ. The numbers are difficult to calculate with precision, but in the 44 Muslim majority nations worldwide today, there are approximately 56 million Christians and the vast majority are being severely persecuted in various ways.
Moreover, since Islam is an ideology espousing world domination, the globe is divided by Muslims into two parts. Dar-al-Islam [House of Islam] refers to lands already under Muslim control, while Dar-al-Harb [House of war] labels the rest of the world.
The modern alliance between the Left and Islamofascism has a strong motivation against the Judeo-Christian philosophies and beliefs which are central to Western civilization. While both groups are serious threats on their own, the overall danger for the West comes more from Islamofascism than Leftism.
That’s because the Left in places such as Europe and America somehow believe that aligning with Islamofascists will never negatively affect them. However, it is certain that the radical Muslims entrenched in Western countries will as easily enslave Leftists as anyone else after the hated Jews and Christians have been eliminated.
A recent prayer request from the “Voice of the Martyrs” organization gives an individual example of what all believers could face should Islamofascists work their will upon us.
Joy Danlami was on her way home from a Christian festival in Nasarawa state with her younger siblings on March 23, 2019, when a group of Fulani Islamic militants attacked them. Her brother and sister escaped with gunshot and machete wounds, but 19-year-old Joy was raped and killed. The Fulani attackers continued on to Joy’s village, where they burned 17 homes and two church buildings. They then attacked a nearby village, burning 11 more homes and two more church buildings. Please pray for Joy’s family and for the hundreds of other Christians displaced or otherwise affected by these attacks.
This is one of the factors making Islamofascism the most dangerous ideology on earth. In the following video, the presenter calls this ‘Islamism.’
As Mr. Ibrahim notes, though the threat is severe, there is hope if the free people of the world can recognize and fight against Islamofascism. However, until the Left removes its own blinders and bigotry against the Judeo-Christian foundations of freedom, that hope remains over the horizon.
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 2 Corinthians 3:17 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Eyes of The Tailless Animals, Prison Memoirs of a North Korean Woman: Living Sacrifice Book Company, 2002