THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
SHOCKING VIDEOS SHOW HORRORS OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD
WARNING: NOT FOR CHILDREN, IMMATURE OR SQUEAMISH
Published on Jul 29, 2015
WARNING: THERE IS VERY DISTURBING IMAGERY OF ABORTED FETUSES IN THE VIDEO ACCOMPANYING THIS REPORT
A third undercover expose video of Planned Parenthood has been released by the Center For Medical Progress, and as expected, it shows footage of fetal body parts after abortions.
The video features whistleblower Holly O’Donnell, who claims that a biomedical company she was working for was in the business of paying Planned Parenthood clinics for fetal organs, according to the condition of the tissue after being extracted from an abortion.
New Sting Shows Abortionists Negotiating Over Dissected Babies; Brings Reporter to Tears:
Published on Jul 28, 2015
David Knight talks with former Planned Parenthood managed Abby Johnson, about what she saw in the organization that turned into a pro-life activist. Learn what she is doing to help combat Planned Parenthood and their agenda.
Former Abortion Worker Exposes Planned Parenthood Agenda
Published on Jul 28, 2015
David Knight talks with former Planned Parenthood managed Abby Johnson, about what she saw in the organization that turned into a pro-life activist. Learn what she is doing to help combat Planned Parenthood and their agenda.
EXCERPT: And Then There Were None (ATTWN) is a registered nonprofit organization that exists to help abortion clinic workers leave the abortion industry. ATTWN is pro-life without exceptions. While we believe in and wholeheartedly support all peaceful prolife efforts, ATTWN seeks to end abortion from the inside out.
Only True Evil Is Pro Abortion
Published on Jul 28, 2015
Alex Jones looks at the recent developments in the abortion fight and takes a look back at earlier this year when Infowars.com reporter Jarkari Jackson led a #AllBlackLivesMatter protest at the local Planned Parenthood Abortuary. In the video squalid looking degenerates showed up and attempted to disrupt the protest. The anti-free speech demonstrators were found to be members of Red Guard Austin, a self-proclaimed “Marxist Leninist-Maoist” organization which espouses Communist viewpoints.
Halo Hackers Bring Down Planned Parenthood
Published on Jul 29, 2015
Alex Jones talks about how a hacking group known as 3301 breached the website of abortion-provider Planned Parenthood Sunday evening, obtaining everything from employee names to email addresses. http://www.infowars.com/hacker-reveal...
As the history of the structure of the Catholic Church is alarming, an exposure of its system is essential. Richard Bennett of www.bereanbeacon.org breaks down the latest move by Pope Francis and how it fits into the history of the Papal system. Biblical and historical analysis of the Papal system is required so that its influence can be prevented. This we have done this video. In dealing with Papal Rome, it is utterly important to remember that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Many Christian people, and indeed Evangelical churches, have been harmed because of their ignorance of the genius of Vatican procedures. This video in explaining the facts exposes these procedures. Please like, rate, and share this video with your fellow church members and your family and friends. Thank you.
So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. -Isaiah 59:19
In a twelve page ruling the high court must either put the ordinance to a vote or repeal it.
“If the city council does not repeal the ordinance by August 24, 2015, then by that date the city council must order that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election,” reads the ruling.
The court also wrote, “‘the power of . . . referendum . . . is the exercise by the people of a power reserved to them,’ and this power should be protected.”
They went on to state, “Second, city officials must perform their ministerial duties.” Notice that term “ministerial.” It comes from Romans 13:1-5. “But the city council did not do so. Instead, it refused to fulfill its ministerial duty, forcing the petition organizers to file suit,” read the opinion.
“Once the city council received the city secretary’s certification, it had a ministerial duty to act,” the court’s ruling read. “According to the charter, following the city secretary’s certification, ‘the council shall immediately reconsider such ordinance or resolution and, if it does not entirely repeal the same, shall submit it to popular vote at the next city general election.’”
The ruling continued, “Faced with the city secretary’s certification, the city council had no discretion but to repeal the ordinance or proceed with the election process. If the city council believed the city secretary abused her discretion in certifying the petition or otherwise erred in her duties, it was nevertheless obligated to fulfill its duties under the charter and thereafter seek any affirmative relief to which it might be entitled.
“When officials refuse to do so, and when there is no adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus may issue,” the ruling continued.
The court then concluded “that the Houston City Council has not performed a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.”
If you recall, the city had illegally put the ordinance into place and was called out on it, resulting in a citizen’s petition to put the measure on the ballot in 2014. The necessary signatures were obtained and the city secretary, Anna Russell, who has served Houston for more than 40 years, validated the signatures to determine that the petition had met the legal requirements, which it did. In fact, it got three times more signatures than required.
But the City of Houston changed their story to claim the signatures were never validated. They openly lied as Ms. Russell confirmed in her official report about the petition, Russell said, “As of July 27, 2014, the number of qualified city of Houston voters who signed the petition had been verified with a margin of error.”
This is what happens when you don’t back down and you see justice through, trusting that God will vindicate His people, those who stand for righteousness.
THE MAYOR & CITY ATTORNEY QUESTIONED BY PRESS, THEN:
SUBPOENAS MODIFIED BUT NOT WITHDRAWN:
Houston Mayor Targets Conservative Pastors
Published on Oct 16, 2014
An ordeal between church and state has erupted in the City of Houston and some local religious leaders are not very happy. Mayor Annise Parker the first open lesbian Mayor in Houston. Sending out court ordered subpoenas, Parker demanded pastors hand over copies of any sermon that discusses Mayor Parker, homosexuality, and gender identity. Church leaders and congregation members are outraged by her demands. The Alliance Defending Freedom Group is a nationally known law firm for working with religious liberty rights. They filed a motion to stop the subpoenas, calling them “overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing,” The argument started the motion for the sermons and writings based on if they are in violation of their tax exempt status. The problem is that tax exemptions are given to Houston Religious groups through federal and state law not through the City of Houston. The first amendment alone states that religious groups are protected in their speech and practice. This all started when a political campaign was initiated to repeal Houston’s new equal rights ordinance. The Pastors that have been issued a subpoena are allegedly part of a group against the new ordinance. According to the Mayor several Pastors encouraged congregation members to fight against the new ordinance by signing petitions and speaking out on politics.After some of the backlash Parker began to retrace her steps. Now she admits the subpoenas were too broad to begin with. She plans to narrow down the demands, but not throw them out altogether. This fight is still brewing and both sides don't seem to be giving in anytime soon. As the two sides build their case, we NOW know at least one other state official who’s taking sides. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stepped in, reprimanding Parker for abusing her power as Mayor, and demanded her to withdraw her subpoenas immediately.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
So-called “LGBT” activists are citing a certain political battle in Houston as being “the next stage of the struggle for full LGBT equality.” But what they advocate truly is a case of some citizens being more equal than others.
At issue is the euphemistically named “Houston Equal Rights Ordinance” (HERO), which expands the number of “protected” (read: privileged) classes to include homosexuals and the “transgender.” The measure, passed by the Houston City Council in May 2014, “prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, military status, marital status, religion, disability, national origin, age, familial status, genetic information, sexual orientation or gender identity,” writes the Huffington Post. And while the ordinance’s provisions have been highly controversial — critics say it would allow people to use the opposite sex’s bathrooms — its path to legality has been no less so.
The controversy began last year when the city of Houston targeted pastors who, trying to repeal the ordinance, had gathered 50,000 signatures to petition the government to put the issue on the ballot. Unhappy being opposed and apparently taking lessons from Barack Obama in executive overreach, the city issued subpoenas demanding, incredibly, that these pastors “turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor,” reported Fox News’ Todd Starnes last October. Moreover, “those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court,” Starnes continued.
After coming under fire nationally for this unprecedented First Amendment trespass, the city withdrew the subpoenas. But it didn’t stop scheming. While the petitioners had collected far more than the 17,269 signatures necessary for a ballot referendum, city officials refused to honor the law, claiming that many of the signatures were invalid. Ordinance opponents then sued, but in April a state district judge agreed with the city.
But this all changed just last Friday when the Texas Supreme Court ruled on the case, stated that the “legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored,” and ordered the city council “to comply with its duties.” As to the particulars, the Texas Tribunereported, “The court directed the council to repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance ... by Aug. 24 or place it on the November ballot.” Thus, a referendum on the matter is now a virtual certainty.
While such ordinances are billed as “anti-discrimination” laws, they’re actually government-discrimination laws and are thus fundamentally dishonest. Just consider an October 2014 statement from Mayor Parker: “It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged." This sounds oh-so noble, but note that the ordinance explicitly does not protect “every Houstonian.” Were this the case, it would be perhaps the shortest ordinance in city history, merely stating that “employment discrimination against any Houstonian is prohibited.” But instead it provides a list of “protected groups,” which, presumably, leaves “every (other) Houstonian” unprotected.
Whatever happened to equality under the law?
And if the boogeyman of discrimination is so bad, wouldn’t a blanket prohibition against it make sense? Of course, this would be unrealistic, as employers discriminate — meaning, choosing one or some from among two or more — continually. They discriminate between the qualified and unqualified, for instance.
Some may think we need anti-discrimination laws to protect against irrelevant discrimination or that based on qualities beyond a person’s control. But such laws only pretend to serve this purpose. After all, a person’s innate intelligence is beyond his control, but the “stupid” aren’t a protected class. Why not, though? Employers favor the intelligent over them, and that’s not fair. (It also seems that in this oversight Mayor Parker is ignoring a major constituency of hers.) Perhaps they aren’t swift enough to effectively lobby politicians. Or maybe stupid is as government does.
And what is “irrelevant” discrimination, anyway? Many assume the variety based on race, sex, or other superficial qualities would qualify, but is this really true? As I wrote last year:
A woman gynecologist I know will only hire female assistants because she believes it makes her patients more comfortable. Not only is this an example of why sex discrimination is often justifiable, but what if she was forced to hire a man? If the patients were indeed less comfortable — and, therefore, perhaps less likely to visit her practice — would that man truly be doing “equal work”?
Now consider female police officers.... Imagine a study found that people in general, and the criminally inclined in particular, found male officers more imposing and therefore were more likely to mind their p’s and q’s around them. Would, then, even a highly competent female officer be able to perform “equal work”? And if not ... wouldn’t being male (or at least appearing so, to head the “transgender” argument off at the pass) be integral to the “work” of policing?
... Next, my local hardware store provides knowledgeable workers, all men, who render valuable advice on products and how to perform various home repairs. If it was determined that people found a female in that role less credible and were then not quite as likely to buy from the establishment, would even a highly competent woman be able to do “equal work” in that capacity?
What about the little West Indian restaurant, with all-black workers, I loved when I spent a few weeks in Tampa? If hiring a white person made the eatery seem less authentic and negatively affected its appeal, would that individual be able to do “equal work”? The same, of course, could be asked about a black person working in a German restaurant. In these cases race would be integral to the “work.”
And what of a homosexual Boy Scout troop leader? If his presence made parents less likely to enroll their boys in the organization, could he be capable of “equal work”?
Whether or not the above are ideal examples is not the point. It is rather that discrimination based on superficial or innate characteristics can be legitimate, yet it is routinely prohibited by misnamed anti-discrimination law. Why misnamed? Because the government is choosing some groups from among many in creating “protected classes,” thus discriminating in determining who can be discriminated against. It simply transfers discrimination power from the private sector to the public sector, from those who create to those who legislate. It is social engineering masquerading as an exercise in nobility.
This is why, to achieve truth in advertising, we should call “anti-discrimination laws” “freedom-of-association-destruction laws.” And what of their morality? While it’s assumed that a “good” person supports such legislation, consider: No one questions your right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please — for any reason you want. Why should you lose that right merely because you erect a few more tables and sell food? “My property, my choice,” right?
The reality is that as with any liberty, that of association means nothing unless it includes the freedom to exercise the freedom in unpopular ways. Besides, accept the trumping of freedom of association in principle, and who knows? The government may soon be telling you what kind of cakes to bake.
