Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Obamahood: Coerced vs. Voluntary Giving…

Despite all his great sounding words, our president’s agenda is all about eliminating what progressives call “economic inequality.”  Despite his speech that will seem to contain all the right words about hard work, creating opportunity for all, and expanding the middle class, we must understand this is a deception. 

The president stands for and will promote wealth redistribution at every opportunity:  Forcibly take, by the powers of the government, from the productive and give to the unproductive.  Coerced giving is known as stealing.  And that is what the Obama administration, as well as the majority in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is all about. 

It matters not that every government tax law and program that steals from the haves to give to the have nots stifles incentives, kills productivity, and destroys innovation.  It is a human character destroying policy.  Greater economic inequality will be the real result.

Here are several examples: 

Obama’s proposed executive order to increase the minimum wage for government contractors takes more from the taxpayer – who comprise only 50% of us and declining – to give to those working on government programs without any expectation of increased productivity.

Obamacare is the biggest coerced wealth redistribution scheme since the progressive income tax.  Because the majority who are signing up will have low premiums and high health care needs, it is virtually assured that a taxpayer bailout will be required.  Proven, reliable actuarial tables for health care expenses  versus premium generation are thrown out the window.

The reach and power of the federal government is growing like a cancer and invading virtually every aspect of our lives.  Our communications, our accounts, our travel, what we eat, the products we are allowed to buy (e.g. lightbulbs), how our children are taught in schools (Common Core), our health care, the defensive weapons we are allowed to purchase, what decreasing portion of our incomes we are allowed to keep, our money spent to prop up our sworn enemies in the Middle East – all of these things are manifestations of federal confiscation of our resources to give to programs and entities that reduce our freedoms and compromise our national security.

The irony is that those of us opposed to this federal confiscation of our incomes and resources are called heartless and un-Christian by progressives.

Newsflash to progressives:  Christians are not Muslims.  We don’t believe in coercion by some higher dogmatic, bureaucratic decree.  We believe that giving must be voluntary – from the heart – not coerced.  We believe that religion becomes evil when it becomes coercive.  We believe government becomes evil when it exceeds its constitutional and moral authority.    We believe in personal responsibility and hard work – and personal sacrifice when required to achieve our goals – OUR goals.  We don’t believe that the lazy or unmotivated or professional takers should be rewarded by government largess at the expense of those who are hard working.  We should obey government, sure.  But that does not mean we ought to be silent about its abuses.  It doesn’t mean we should stand by and do nothing about its abuses.  In our government we ARE the government.  It is an obligation as a responsible member of society to speak out and act when government stampedes our means of livelihood and economic freedoms.

The role of the federal government has gone way way beyond its constitutional purpose.  It has become not merely paternal, but has become the dictator and the thief.  It is not just protecting us from foreign threats, but it is sacrificing our domestic tranquility with its coercive greed.

Friday, January 17, 2014

The problem with homosexuality, it’s promoters and their integrity…

First of all, let me introduce you to a great Christian lady who speaks the truth regarding the problem of homosexuality:

Linda Harvey

Here is her web site:


Now, a little about the behavior of homosexually-addicted fascists and their promoters.  Tolerance, in the same manner as demanded by Muslims, is a one way street.  They cry “tolerance” but anyone who has a different view of their immoral behavior will be shouted down as “bigot”, “homophobe”, “hater” or worse, without providing any evidence of anything.

Linda’s new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay” (highly recommended for anyone who cares anything about morality) is a case in point.  She put that book up on Amazon.com.  The gay crowd took note and inundated the site with hateful comments not just about the book, but about the author as well.  This is the way the gay crowd works.  They layer evil upon evil.  First their homosexual immorality.  Then their vicious evil actions to defend their immorality.  This is human nature at its worst.

Below are a few examples of the campaign of hate by the defenders of immorality:  

1.0 out of 5 stars

 Too coarse for toilet paper, January 12, 2014

By Ben Erickson (BERESFORD, SD, US) - See all my reviews

Filled with pseudo science and illogical hate, the only use I could find for it was toilet paper. The problem is that it left me a little chaffed.


1.0 out of 5 stars

Unscientific, Faithless, Reckless, and Hateful -CHILD ABUSE, December 31, 2013

By Partrick Rauber - See all my reviews

Do you want your child to hate you? Do you to cause damage to your child and rack up therapy bills?


1.0 out of 5 stars

But maybe he is!, December 30, 2013

By John C Wall - See all my reviews

Linda Harvey is a loon with no credentials in psychology or sociology. Her bigoted ideas about 'Christian therapy' are more harmful than child rape. She should be in a penitentiary with other child rapists.


1.0 out of 5 stars

 Linda Harvey eats children, December 30, 2013

By William T. Rhea - See all my reviews

Linda Harvey is a famous anti-American bigot who makes money of off the bigotry of others. She is barely literate and incapable of advanced thought. If it weren't for hate, she'd be homeless and living on the streets.

More similar comments can be viewed here:


These activists are shaping our nation’s social agenda.  They are prevailing in both their energy level and the effectiveness of their propaganda throughout most media.  Not just tolerance of perversion, but promotion, acceptance, and protection of it is in its ascendency throughout our culture.

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Doctrine : Not for me, too intolerant

I was conversing with a couple the other day about their hunt for a church home.  I asked them what they are looking for in a church.  Their criteria, in this general order was:

  • Close to home
  • Not too big
  • Few “rules”
  • Non-judgmental

I asked them how important church doctrine is to them.  Their response:  Not important at all.

While I thought a lot of thoughts to myself at that reply, I allowed the stream of consciousness to continue and bit my tongue, as in what I recall Archie Bunker telling his wife:  “Stifle yourself, Edith.”  But I refuse to bite or stifle my fingers as I am now typing.

A lack of concern about doctrine is like attending a wild party – no telling where it will lead.  Or like the proverbial box of chocolates – you never know what you’ll get.

I have to admit there is consistency in their response.  Indifference toward doctrine goes hand in hand with disliking “rules” and “judging.”  Not judging and disliking rules means it doesn’t really matter what you or anyone else believes or does.  That seems rather queer to me, especially in a church.

What, again is the purpose of attending church?  Oh, to fellowship with likeminded believers.  Really.  If all “like minded believers” attend a church because they disdain “rules” and “judging”, that will likely be a church that doesn’t care much what it believes.  Believers in what?  Indifference, rebellion and anarchy? 

Here is their theme song:

You gotta go where you wanna go,
Do what you wanna do
With whoever you wanna do it with.

These are the words of the girl left behind by the guy who does his own thing.  These hippie-inspired lyrics have inspired many boomers to adopt this as their life’s motto.  Anarchy and rebellion, doing our own thing, have become the highest value and the primary goal for our preferred church – as long as there are likeminded believers in attendance.

My understanding of the purpose of attending church is to worship God, be reminded of what Christ has done for us, inform us how to be pleasing to God, and to be encouraged and encourage others in the faith.  To do this there needs to be DOCTRINE that instructs us in a number of things:

  • What is worship
  • The nature of God
  • Who Christ is
  • What he did and why
  • Thoughts and behaviors that are pleasing to God, and by extension, what thoughts and behaviors are not
  • What faith is
  • Faith in what
  • How to encourage others.

If I cared little about doctrine chances are I would end up attending a church that perverts the worship experience, distorts the nature of God, denies who Christ really is, ignores what He did for us and why, condones any thought and behavior, dismisses the need for faith or what to believe in, and only encourages others to rebel against “doctrine” as I do.

And we need a church for that?

Here is the rest of the story about these lyrics.  The next verse of the Mamas and Pappas song reads:

You've been gone a week, and I tried so hard
Not to be the crying kind -
Not to be the girl you left behind.

Substitute the words “the God you left behind” in the last line and the feelings hit home.  Those who don’t care about doctrine don’t really care about their God.

Saturday, January 04, 2014

Suicidally misleading claims about Islam from the Pope…

If misleading the flock is a sin, then the Pope needs to pray for an extra dose of mercy.  Once again the Papacy is proving itself worthy of being an anti-Christ, if not THE anti-Christ.

Am I being too harsh?  Absolutely not based on this latest outrageous Papal decree.

The Pope’s latest instruction to the Bishops, Clergy, and lay faithful of the Catholic Church is an exhortation that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” 

Nothing. Could. Be. Further. From. The. Truth!

This statement is diametrically and diabolically opposite the truth.  Authentic Islam promotes coercion and violence as their means of “evangelism.”  Mainstream orthodox Islam has maintained this doctrine since the days of Muhammad.  Virtually all of today’s influential Imams promote the coercion and terror that has been an integral historic teaching of the Qur’an and Muhammad .

The office of the Pope is either infiltrated by Islamic agents or influenced by naïve and ignorant advisors.

Does the Pope truly believe that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence?  Or is he attempting to stem the increasingly obvious truth about Islam among a growing number of Catholics to promote more effective evangelism?.  Or possibly, like most Stockholm Syndrome infected liberals is he denying the facts about Islam out of fear?

Are lies about Islam required to engage Catholics in effective evangelism?  Doesn’t it make better sense to have as much understanding as possible about the beliefs of those we attempt to evangelize?  Feeding the flock lies and withholding the true nature of a Satanic ideology – in this case, Islam –  is hardly a formula for evangelizing success.  If the truth shall set us free, lies and misrepresentation will sentence us to bondage.

If the office of the Pope is neither infiltrated by Islamic agents nor ill-advised by ignorant and naïve underlings, then is the Papacy in fact influenced by Satanic forces of a nature that could be described as The Anti-Christ?

Here is more on the Pope’s decree from Atlas Shrugs.

The following is the relevant excerpt of “Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium”:


253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.


Note:  The photos contained in this blog (except the last one) depict the friendly engagement of the Papacy with Islamic representatives.  These Papal actions send absolutely the wrong message to trusting Catholics.  The last photo depicts the results of the Papacy misleading Christians about Islam.

Thursday, January 02, 2014

More pastors failing to provide the whole truth of the real Islam…

I received a requested Christmas present of a book titled “Making Sense of Your World – A Biblical World View” by W. Gary Phillips, William E. Brown, and John Stonestreet with a Foreward by Norman Geisler.  This is a book that compares several categories of world views - Naturalism, Transcendentalism, Theism (which includes Islam) and Postmodernism – with the Biblical world view.

Now I don’t know which of the several authors of this book wrote the passages I cite below, but they are all complicit in their collective failure to describe the nature and evils of Islam, however much I otherwise respect Norman Geisler.

Starting on pages 46-48, several Islam-indulging statements are made.  First, the title of Diagram 2.5 reads “Comparing the Three Great Theistic Religions”.  This statement presumes that Allah is legitimately Theistic to begin with.  That is a poor assumption on which to base a book on “world views.”  The authors failed to give any account of the pagan origin of the Allah myth.  Even putting Islam in the same category with Christianity as one of the great theistic religions does a gross disservice to Christianity.  If a religion as false and evil as Islam can be proclaimed side by side with Christianity, what does that say of Christianity?  The authors are mired in a centuries old lie.

Second, that same table states that scripture used by Muslims includes Psalms and the Gospels.  Virtually every scripture quoted in the Qur’an is a distortion of what has been proclaimed by Christianity and Judaism for 3,000 years.  It is a misleading stretch to claim that Islam takes any part of the Bible seriously, never mind providing accurate quotes or interpretations from the Bible.

Third, the author claims that Islam means “surrender” when in fact most Islamic experts define Islam as “submission.”  Similar words, yes, but submission has a more coercive meaning and is more accurate. 

Fourth, Islam is stated to “share a common understanding of God as a single, personal Being.”  Allah is no more “personal” than the “moon god” from which the Allah myth is derived.  Allah is an impersonal tyrant that convinces the ignorant, the naïve, and the politically motivated tyrants to commit horrible acts.

The author could have at least added these or similar qualifications to their overly vague and casual descriptions of Islam.  These erroneous or misleading statements alone should cause the reader pause about the author’s grasp of Islam.  But there is more.

On page 97 the authors repeat the Islamic charge of “tri-theism” against Christianity without adequately explaining that Islam itself is a pagan fictional construct and has no legitimate claim to any sort of deity.  Islam’s complaint about the Christian God is more audacious than Obama’s claim of audacity for “hope.”

Page 150:  Again the book raises the fraud of Islam to the heights of one of “the…great theistic worldviews of Christianity…” without bothering to analyze the pagan basis of Islam and its supposed “god”.  In this section’s discussion of why there is evil, the authors could have at least touched on the facts that throughout Islamic history, the orthodox doctrines of Islam promoted intolerance, terror, and massacre to this very day.  Islam has a “god” that sponsors and promotes evil among its followers.

Page 173 with regard to the “particularly significant” growth of Islam, the authors write of Islam’s “more aggressive expressions worldwide” without describing what they mean by “more aggressive expressions.”  Why couldn’t they describe the carnage, intolerance and terror promoted by Islamic ideology to assure submission to the will of Allah and that facilitates Islam’s “aggressive expressions worldwide?”  The authors missed another opportunity to correctly portray Islam as an anti-Christ, if not THE anti-Christ.  This is another milquetoast description of Islam.

Page 180 the authors correctly admit that “almost every religion has the ethical equivalent of the Golden Rule…”  They fail to mention that the exception is Islam that has no equivalent whatsoever.

I would think that if an author wished to contrast their beloved religion, Christianity, with other world views, especially those that wish to eradicate Judaism and Christianity from the face of the earth as Islam promotes, they would at least provide a more accurate, emotional, spirited and complete portrayal of that evil.

This failure on the part of these authors represents the typical failure of the Christian Church today.  The Church is not responding as if our faith and freedoms are being threatened at all.  I don’t understand such a passive, academic, matter of fact approach.

As this critique is also an Amazon.com book review, here are several other comments that explain my 2 out of 5 stars.

[Speaking of the Amazon reviews, it appears that the very complementary but shallow reviews that garner this book 4.5 stars were offered up by college students given extra credit for their reviews.  I have read thousands of reviews on Amazon and the sponsored reviews stand out very clearly.]

One other criticism, resulting from my hope and expectation for the book, is that it is written in a more academic style than I anticipated.  It is written more in the style of a text book – dry and detached. 

Further, the selection of the rather arcane world view categories seems a bit out of touch with the nature of challenges Christianity faces today.  Transcendentalism and Modernism?  Really?  More relevant categories would be atheism (including Communism), Islam, progressivism (big government in lieu of  personal responsibility and God), and naturalism (which includes politicized science worship).  All four categories have significant overlap, especially with atheism.

The book does have its strong points.  It covers naturalism quite well and goes into a lot of detail promoting the logic and benefits of Christianity compared to the other world views it compares.  I just wish it didn’t minimize the gross deceptions and evils of Islam.