Southern Poverty Law Center lists reputable Christian Ministries as “hate groups”…

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently added a number of conservative, Christian, Islam awareness and related groups to their list of “hate groups.”  Of course, the mainstream media (MSM) uses the SPLC as if it were “the Gospel” (is it allowed to use that word?) when they report to so-called “news.”  Robert Spencer's “Jihad Watch”, Pamela Geller’s “Geller Report”, and Brigitte  Gabriel’s  “Act for America” are current examples.  There are many others.

Among the most recent is one of the most reputable Christian ministries I know:  The D. James Kennedy Ministries.

I am personally familiar with the people involved in that Christian ministry.  It is one of the most solidly Christian ministries I have known.  And the SPLC has declared them a “hate group.”

That means that anyone who embraces traditional Christian doctrine, whether Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, or even Latter Day Saints are subject to slander as “haters.”

D. James Kennedy Ministries is among the first to declare “enough is enough.”  They filed suit against the slandering SPLC.

HERE is a post by Pam Geller on the subject where she reports,

This is most welcome and encouraging. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been defaming perfectly good organizations for years, with no pushback at all and blanket acceptance from an enemedia that never even once asks what makes this sinister group a valid arbiter of what constitutes a hate group and what doesn’t. It is great to see that free people are beginning to fight back. I wish the D. James Kennedy Ministries all success.

I don’t usually solicit contributions for organization in my blogs, but I’ll make this  situation my first exception.

If you feel moved to contribute toward D. James Kennedy Ministries to help defend Christianity and expression of the Christian faith and conservative values, please do so via the linked website HERE.

Closely related to this ongoing SPLC slander attack is a video by Andrew Klaven titled “Shut Up!”.  It is a summation is what the left is doing all across the nation to silence conservative, Christian, patriot, and pro-US constitutionalist views.

Those like the SPLC, ANTIFA and others who slander and protest against Christians, patriots, law-abiding and freedom loving people the loudest, accusing us of being “Nazis”, are the ones acting like haters and Nazis.

Below is a letter from Jerry Newcombe, the Executive Director of D. James Kennedy Ministries, describing the despicable and irresponsible actions of the SPLC and how the MSM blindly follows…

What Is Hate and Who Gets to Define It? The SPLC?

by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min.

A headline on Drudge (8/21/17) declares that Google is teaming up with “liberal groups to snuff out conservative websites.” Apparently the search-engine giant is partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other left-wing groups to document and publicize “hate crimes and events” in America.

After the terrible events in Charlottesville, any God-fearing, rational American would welcome this news, correct? The problem, however, is that by allowing groups like the SPLC to define what is hate and who is a hater, they show how dangerous this development could be.

Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council, an organization once attacked by a man convicted as a domestic terrorist because they were included on the SPLC Hate Map, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center is reckless in labeling groups as hate groups or labeling individuals as hate mongers, and they do both. They have no authority to do so.”

I work for a group, D. James Kennedy Ministries, which the SPLC has falsely designated a “hate group” because we don’t believe in same-sex marriage. That view doesn’t make us unique. Up until the last few years, the majority of Americans did not believe in it either—nor did Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, according to their public statements up until 2012.

Yet, according to the SPLC, we’re “haters.” The irony that I’m supposedly a hater is that I am anything but. Daily I strive to pray the Prayer of St. Francis: “Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me replace it with love…” And so on.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lost his office twice, in part because of actions by the SPLC. First, they joined with other liberal groups to sue him for a public display of the Ten Commandments. Then in 2012, he won the election as Chief Justice again for Alabama, but the SPLC filed a legal complaint against him for his stance in favor of traditional marriage---a stance that 81 percent of the voters in Alabama took in 2006 to amend their Constitution.

I got to interview Chief Justice Moore recently for our television program, “Profit$ of Hate,” about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Moore accused the SPLC essentially of psychological projection.

Moore, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center has had Ben Carson [the renowned neurosurgeon] on their hate list. They’ve had Tony Perkins and his organization [the above-mentioned Family Research Council] on their hate list. The truth is: they’re the ones that hate. They hate God, and they hate the acknowledgment of God; and [yet] they call other people haters.”

The SPLC likes to fancy itself as doing the unfinished work of the civil rights movement---which they have now linked to same-sex marriage and transgender rights, and so on.

For our program, I also got to interview Ricardo Davis, an African-American who is the president of Georgia’s Right-to-Life and is also the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia, which is on the SPLC’s hate list as an alleged antigovernment group. Davis commends the SPLC for the good work they did in the waning days of the civil rights movement. But he notes that Dr. Martin Luther King’s movement was undergirded by faith in God and in the Bible. In contrast, what the SPLC is promoting today is often in contradiction to faith in God and in the Bible.

Davis told our viewers, “If I could say something to [SPLC co-founder] Morris Dees right now, what I would say is, ‘Morris, you came alongside my father’s generation to help them get out from under injustice and it was unjust because it violated God’s Word…. but now, you’re on the wrong side of history’.”

Critics note that even many of the actual hate groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hate Map (such as the Ku Klux Klan) have been on the wane for decades. But Morris Dees and the SPLC manage to make huge profits by scaring people into thinking that behind virtually every bush in America is some sort of hate-monger.

Davis added, “What did Jesus say? What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world? If he keeps his mailing list up to date, if he rakes in millions and millions of dollars, yet loses his soul?  And The Southern Poverty Law Center in particular is an organization that has lost the soul and energy behind the civil rights movement. The honorable thing to do would be to repent and believe the gospel.”

We should all work to end true hate in America. But defining the politics of someone you merely disagree with as “hate” just muddies the waters and further divides us as a nation.

Nothing good can come out of a “free speech rally” where 30,000 protest against it…

OK.  Things are getting really weird now.

Last week there was a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA organized and led by a former Occupy Wall Street leftist Obama supporter inadvertently featuring a guy from Ohio who mowed down a bunch of counter-protesters via his car.

Today there was a “Free Speech Rally” in Boston, MA comprised of fewer than 100 where over 30,000 came out to protest against the free speech rally.

And naturally most media will or have come out for the 30,000 anti-free speech rallyers in the name of … you guessed it…free speech.  The irony is massive.  Even Trump came out in support of the leftists who marched against the free speech rally.

“But [Trump]… later seemed to back the …[demonstrators], posting: “Our great country has been divided for decades. Sometimes you need protest in order to heel [sic], & we will heel, & be stronger than ever before!”

The Guardian

The “tolerate everything” leftists are showing themselves to be the least tolerant of anyone.  The left who act like Nazi’s call the organizers of peaceful rallies “Nazis.”

Conservatives can’t speak on college campuses because the “tolerant” leftist university leaders can’t tolerate them.

Leftists tolerate or promote homosexuality, gay marriage, transgenders, Islamic ideology,  big government,  one-world government, higher taxes, and burdensome regulations.

They don’t tolerate but vilify free speech, truth, Christians, Jews, those who want a strong and successful America aka “Nationalists”, patriots, conservatives and Constitutionalists.

There was never a time in my memory where the warning “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…”  was so appropriate.

Zeitgeist is a word that came to my  attention recently.  It is a mysterious sounding word with tones of an ethereal, unseen force washing over and influencing masses of people – a poltergeist on a massive scale.  The dictionary  definition is: “the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.”  A more complete definition is “the dominant set of ideals and beliefs that motivate the actions of the members of a society in a particular period in time.”

There were fairly gradual changes to our nations “zeitgeist” over the past several decades.  But those decades were more like a pent up zeitgeist occasionally peeking his head out of the bottle in contrast to what we are experiencing today.  Today the pent up zeitgeist is fully out of the bottle, manifesting itself in ways we could not have imagined just a few years ago.

This in itself is an undeniable social revolution.

Yet, will this revolution be more than our society can bear?  Will there be a counter-revolution?  Not one where another zeitgeist peeks out of the bottle, but a physical counter-reaction to the evil forces that is todays zeitgeist.

I’ve read several accounts of recent clashes that are described as the opening salvos of a new American civil war.  Not one with physical boundaries like north versus south.  But one that has both sides battling everywhere – in every state, in every city.

The sides will be these:

The Defenders:

Conservative Christians

Conservative Jews

Constitutionalists:  Primarily “originalists”

Nationalists: those who want our nation to be successful and strong

Patriots:  Those who cherish the history and basis of our nation’s founding and what it represents.

Those who promote personal responsibility and self-sufficiency

Those who cherish individual freedoms and less government regulation and coercion

The Zeitgeist Protagonists: 

Socialists/progressives/Communists

Muslims

Most college professors

Most media

Most blacks

Those who are suspicious of the basis of our nation’s founding and who demonize it.

Those who not only disbelieve the Christian and Jewish religions but who believe they are a problem to be dealt with.

Most in state and federal government.

Most who are dependent on entitlements from the state and federal governments including EBT recipients, housing assistance recipients and others who rely on government aid and programs.

The lines are drawn.  The players are showing their hand of who they are and where they stand.  The Republicans are the biggest surprise to many of us.  I can no longer identify with Republicans because they don’t identify with my interests and values any more.

The leftists and their blind followers are making themselves into fools by crying “TOLERANCE” when they are the LEAST tolerant of any group in the nation.

The question now stands:  How will this new “civil war” play out?  Will it remain merely protest versus protest?  How violent will protests become?  How many on both sides will embrace violent means to further their cause?  To what extent will this new zeitgeist limit free speech, and along with it, the ability to express and hear the truth?

Four strikes around Guam: How would we react?

A fascinating chess match is underway.  North Korea says it is planning to fire four missiles to land around the perimeter of Guam, a major US military base in the western Pacific.

The mega players are:

North Korea/China

The United States/Japan/South Korea

Within the North Korea/China sphere we have…

Kim Jong-in, known variously as the crazy fat boy and China’s pit bull and his bevy of military generals and rocket scientists..

Xi Jinping, China’s President and Li Keqiang, China’s Premier (head of government).

Given the following facts, how would you expect China to react relative to North Korea:

“China is North Korea’s most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food and energy. It has helped sustain Kim Jong-un’s regime, and has historically opposed harsh international sanctions on North Korea in the hope of avoiding regime collapse and a refugee influx across their 870-mile border.”

Article on China-North Korea Relationship by The Council on Foreign Relations

And we have the US/Japan/South Korea…

A US that arguably has not been more divided since the Civil War

US media using scare tactics reminding us that we have not been closer to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A dysfunctional US Congress opposed to the President in most things he attempts

Japan and South Korea who are likely suffering a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome in fear for their fate from the bullying military displays from North Korea’s “crazy man.”  The crazier he acts, the more effective his bluster and aggressive foreign policy is likely to be.

So back to China’s relationship with North Korea:

China and North Korea have a lot in common:  Most important allies, biggest trading partner, opposed to sanctions, 870-mile common border.  They are both in their own side of the world.   And the big unmentioned:  China would love to see a reunification of North and South Korea under the domination of the North.  China has much more in common with the North than the South.

---

Reported this evening:

BEIJING (Reuters) - If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.

---

Is there any question as to whose side China is on visa vie attempts of the US to impose effective as opposed to token sanctions?

This raises several important questions:

The first question is:  Will China be effective in preventing North Korea from its planned firing of rockets that encircle Guam?

The second question is:  Will China be effective in preventing North Korea from continuing with its development of nuclear weapons and the systems needed to deliver them across the Pacific?

My answer to the first question was going to be “yes” until I gave it further thought as explained later, below.  Initial reaction:  “Yes” because it does not appear to be in China’s interest for North Korea to provoke the US with a display of rockets in this manner. 

My answer to the second question is “no.”  China has no interest in limiting North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.  Why should they?  China has nukes – over 260 warheads.  I would not be surprised if China assisted North Korea with that technology every bit as much as  any rogue nations such as Iran has done.

This next question is based on the assumption that China will NOT reign in their favorite ally – that North Korea will continue to fire off their display of rocketry:

What will the US do when North Korea sets off 4 missiles to land around the periphery of Guam?

Here are a few alternative scenarios should this occur…

1. We shoot down the missiles.
2. We allow them to land (we don’t suspect they are armed)
3. We attempt to impose greater sanctions on North Korea
4. We attempt to squeeze China in some fashion, e.g. tariffs on Chinese imports.
5. We bomb the crap out of North Korea.
6. We bluster/threaten more, but without any substantive action

Given the nature of Trump to bluster, ridicule, and threaten as part of his “Art of the Deal” negotiation tactics, given the nature of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to oppose most things Trump proposes, and given the distaste for and likely opposition to any military action that might upset American’s comfort zone, I place a bet on #6.:  Bluster and no substantive action.  Our action relative to North Korea will be very similar to the “horrible” agreement we made with Iran concerning its nuclear program.  There was a lot of bluster about how terrible it was and that one of the first things we would do after being elected is to tear it up.

Has that happened?  Will it happen?  No and no.

Our nation is on the downhill side of the apex of not offending anyone – socially, politically, militarily.  We didn’t do much with Iran’s program.  We will do even less concerning North Korea. We have indeed become a nation of snowflakes.  Any sanction we impose on North Korea will be token.  Any embargo we place on Chinese goods will be token.  Any military action we pursue will be minimal and token.  And finally, what significant action did we take when China built and militarized islands in the midst of international sea lanes?  It didn’t happen over night.  They were years in progress.  We have essentially done nothing.

Knowing that the above is the likely reality, China will have no interest in reigning in North Korea with regard to either their missile launches or their nuclear program.  They know the US has no effective leadership and no heart for engaging in a manner that would likely upset our addict-like comfort zone.

Those who rationalize “why shouldn’t North Korea have their nukes?  So what if they use them as a threat for South Korea to capitulate to them?” will prevail.

The US will go on, happy, but no wiser.  One more war fought in vain.

____________________________

BONUS:   Click link below…

Pentagon Unveils Plan For "Pre-Emptive Strike" On North Korea

But will we do it?  I seriously doubt we will.  Note the comments section that follows the article.