Translate

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

HOPEWELL MENNONITE & DOVE "APOSTOLIC" NETWORK OF CHURCHES SPREAD UNBIBLICAL GNOSTIC WAGNERIAN APOSTASIES OF KINGDOM NOW, PROPHETIC, HEALING, DELIVERANCE & IMPARTATION

HOPEWELL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, TELFORD, PA
BECOMING A CULT
http://hopewellchristianfellowship.com/
MENNONITE APOSTASY,
GNOSTICISM & PSYCHOHERESY
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
WHEN YOU NEED WISDOM ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BIBLE YOU GET INTO TROUBLE

2015 DOVE Hopewell School Promo
Published on Jul 20, 2015
Find out about this dynamic leadership and ministry training school. Hear from the director of DOVE International and graduates of the school.


DOVE HOPEWELL Leadership and Ministry School Promo HD
"IMPARTATION" FROM THE GNOSTIC WISE MEN

HOW TO BUILD THE KINGDOM OF GOD TO ACCELERATE THE RETURN OF CHRIST
"THE SEVEN MOUNTAINS MANDATE" OF THE DOMINIONIST 
"NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION" 
CREATED BY C. PETER WAGNER

DOES THE BIBLE MENTION "7 PRIMAL NEEDS"?
Do you see yourself in these confessions?
These inner aches and pains correspond to seven primal God-given needs that all men feel deeply. And in Man Alive, I’ll show you something surprising—God’s plan for harnessing that raw, restless energy you feel to propel you toward the life you were meant to live.
No man should have to settle for half alive. You can experience a powerful life transformed by Christ. I promise you, there is a way. In the book you’re holding, I’ll show you how.
Yours for changed lives,
Patrick Morley
HOPEWELL & DOVE "APOSTOLIC" NETWORK OF CHURCHES SPREAD UNBIBLICAL GNOSTIC WAGNERIAN APOSTASIES OF KINGDOM NOW, PROPHETIC, HEALING, DELIVERANCE & IMPARTATION
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:
SEE ALSO:
http://www.dcfi.org/
C. PETER WAGNER'S VIDEO: 

NAR "Apostle C. Peter Wagner teaching its key doctrine of Dominionism (Not the "Great Commission")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WboWrp-Cwo
________________________________________________________
YET ANOTHER 7:
THE ANCIENT PATHS & FAMILY FOUNDATIONS
EXPOSED
SEE: https://www.familyfoundations.com/about/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Dear Friends,
Family Foundations International is committed to delivering to God His inheritance in the saints. That inheritance is YOU, understanding your identity and living and fulfilling your destiny in Christ!
My own heart was deeply stirred years ago upon reading Gary Smalley and John Trent’s Book, The Blessing. I realized upon reading this book that we in western culture had inadvertently, over time, departed far from many of God’s basic life principles. Many of the biblical foundations of families, including the practice of imparting the blessing from one generation to the next, have been ripped right out from under us in our culture. Consequently, many people are often frustrated in their attempts to deal with the symptoms and consequences of long-term (multi-generational) destructive sowing and reaping patterns in their lives and the lives of their families.
“…and those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You shall raise up the foundations of many generations; and you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of the paths in which to dwell” (Isaiah 58:12).
The purpose of Family Foundations is to help churches re-establish in families the biblical foundations that cause life to work and people to prosper from one generation to the next. The primary tool which the Lord has given us to initiate this process, is the Family Foundations Ancient Paths Seminar (Formerly, “From Curse To Blessing”). In the Ancient Paths Seminar, we identify and minister to the participants regarding seven critical times in life when we are more vulnerable to receive either “God’s true image”, or “Satan’s false image” of our own identity and destiny.
My book, The Ancient Paths, provides a more complete description of the material covered in the Basic Seminar and the overall ministry of Family Foundations International. If you wish to order this book, or other books and audio teachings from our Bookstore please call, fax or phone us at the ministry address and phone numbers. I look forward to partnering with you in the restoration of biblical family foundations in the lives of God’s people throughout the world.
Yours for the Kingdom,
Craig Hill
______________________________________________________________
THE HOW TO OF 
"GENERATIONAL CURSES"
CRAIG HILL REVEALS WHAT YOU DIDN'T GET FROM THE BIBLE?
SEE YOUTUBE CHANNEL: 
"UNIVERSAL LIFE PRINCIPLES":
THE ANCIENT PATHS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT FROM A 
PSYCHO-HERETICAL, EXTRA-BIBLICAL VIEW
BIBLE FALLS SHORT???
CRAIG HILL QUOTE THAN DEMEANS THE BIBLE:
"THE BIBLE IS A BOOK THAT IS PRIMARILY DESCRIPTIVE, NOT DIRECTIVE"

Lost Values in Our Culture;
Ancient Paths with Craig Hill 

THE "MECHANISTIC" BIBLE: "THE OWNERS' MANUAL FOR LIFE"???
AND HE PURPORTS TO HAVE THE LOST TOOLBOX FOR YOU
______________________________________________________________
GARY SMALLEY EXPOSED
SEE: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/smalley/general.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Gary Smalley

General Teachings/Activities*

-  Smalley is a so-called Christian psychologist who seeks to integrate the presuppositions of psychology with those of Scripture and equate the same level of authority to both of them. Smalley worked with Bill Gothard for ten years, and now conducts family seminars through his own company, Today's Family. (Smalley has one seminar version for Christian audiences and another version for secular audiences.) Today's Family is located in Branson, Missouri.

Smalley began his career working for Bill Gothard teaching a spiritual "chain of command" theology, which was very authoritarian and encouraged women to be compliant to and dependent on their husbands. When Smalley's own marriage failed, he evidently made a disastrous revision of this theology by assigning an even greater burden of marital responsibility to the husband, while stripping him of the authority necessary to carry it out. He reduced women to inculpable "responders" to their husbands, congenital victims of gender with little of the strength of will or character shown by Abigail with Nabal, for example. In a strange twist, the wife may then presume to be the family's spiritual conscience and her husband's worst critic (Gen. 3:16). Disciplinary separations are encouraged until the husband conforms to her expectations of "godly" behavior. [Paul Stevens (author of Married for Good) says overcoming the problems with Gothard and Smalley's theology accounts for at least half his time as a marriage counselor. He says the problem is not bad marriages, but bad theology.] (Source: Stephen Smyth.)

-  Smalley is a strong proponent of right-brain/left-brain theory, which postulates that men use the left side of their brains, while women use the right side of theirs. Thus, according to Smalley, women are "more in touch" with their feelings. On the basis of this theory, he approaches the marriage relationship from a selfish wife's point of view, and concentrates on how the wife can get the husband to meet all of her so-called needs, rather than how she can be a loving help-mate to him. Smalley, therefore, actually promotes a form of female dominance in the marriage relationship. His techniques for "bonding" in the family and his counsel to wives on how to change their husbands are shallow, selfish, and manipulative.

-  Smalley is the "church's" leading proponent of right-brain/left-brain pseudoscience. This right-brain/left-brain myth, which claims to describe personality types by brain hemisphere dominance, as well as give insights to male/female communication effectiveness, has been thoroughly discredited by secular neuroscientists, to say nothing of the fact that it has no support in Scripture.

The popularization of right-brain/left-brain has been largely due to the book, The Language of Love, co-authored by Smalley and fellow psychologist, John Trent. (Both worked together in Phoenix, Arizona from 1984-1993. Both also have theological degrees, but apparently believe that the Bible alone is insufficient to handle people's problems of living.) The Language of Love was published and promoted by James Dobson's Focus on the Family Publishing, and Smalley and Trent have been frequent guests on Dobson's radio program (as has pop psychologist, Dr. Donald Joy, credited by Smalley and Trent as being the source of their right-/left-brain information). The book touts "emotional word pictures" as the means of "activating" the "right brain," alleged to be essential for a wife to communicate with her husband. (In a rare reference to Scripture, Smalley and Trent assert that the prophet Nathan activated the right side of king David's brain with "an emotional word picture that would change the course of a kingdom.") [In the second edition of The Language of Love, due largely to the discrediting of the right-brain/left-brain silliness, all references to such were removed. "Unfortunately, this 'revision' was only cosmetic. The delusion that 'emotional word pictures' are the key to relationships and spiritual growth remains the false message of this deceptive book" (1/92, CIB Bulletin).]

[One writer described Smalley's 1988 Christian Broadcasters Convention speech as "humanistic nonsense," and that, "His entire talk was based upon today's popular left-brain/right-brain myth spawned by pop psychology -- a myth which brain researchers call "whole-brain/half-wittedness." (Source: 2/89, CIB Bulletin). In 1988, even Psychology Today ridiculed the concept with an article titled "Left-Brain/Right-Brain/Broccoli-Brain."]

-  In Winning the War Within, Smalley and Trent endorse an even more widely accepted myth, that of low self-esteem as being the cause of most of our problems. For example, they say: "The degree of self-control you have in your life is in direct proportion to the degree of acceptance you have for yourself. Put another way, if you don't value yourself, you won't 'pull in the reins' on actions and attitudes that will affect you for the worst" (p. 44). They go on to say that addictions, guilt, pride and apathy are all caused by a distorted view of ourselves as a result of the damage caused to us by others. So, if our sins (which is what addictions, pride, etc. are) are caused by low self-esteem, we would expect to find that Christ has come, at least in part, to save us from our own bad self-image (see Beyond Promises, p. 79) Bill McCartney seems to believe this when he says in Trent and Smalley's book that he came to Christ in order to "Gain some real satisfaction," since he "wasn't feeling good" about himself (p. 11).

Of course, the Scriptures do not sanction the low self-esteem theory -- it is thoroughly out of sync with the whole message of the Bible. "The problem of the natural man is not that he fails to esteem or love himself enough; it is that he loves himself too much" -- is the true message of Scripture. What makes a critique of Gary Smalley's teachings on self-esteem so vital is that Smalley, like Robert Schuller, has not only distorted the Biblical teachings on sanctification, but he has also distorted the message of the Gospel. The self-esteem gospel minimizes sin, points us inward instead of to Christ, ignores the true purpose of the cross, and presents Christianity as a feel-good, self-oriented religion, instead of a call to deny self and follow Christ. Are those who respond to the gospel of self-esteem truly Christians, or have they been deceived? Paul's attitude toward those who preached a false gospel was to condemn them (Galatians 1:6-9), not to join them!

What Gary Smalley and all his "self-esteem" cult followers mean when they say "self love" is so far from the Biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself that it isn't rational to try making a comparison. What Smalley is saying when he talks of "self-love" is that there is an intrinsic virtue or power within man whereby if he were to activate it or act on it he would be able to solve his "low self-image" and effect a change that is needed within his nature. It is a theology of humanism which exalts man and all that he is above everything else. It is a belief-system which Smalley and his fellow humanists believe, which regards the essential nature of man as "good" and that man is able to effect a change in his nature and consequently his behavior. (Adapted from the June/July 1997, Think on These Things.)

-  Browsing the "book table" at my local Sam's Club in October of 1996, I stumbled upon Gary Smalley's latest half-witted, pop-psychology contribution to the "Christian" book market, Making Love Last Forever (1996:Word). I gleaned a few pages to learn that Smalley now has a "love guarantee" for every married couple -- for just $11.95 (discounted 60% at Sam's Club), you too can be blessed as Gary "reveals the secrets behind his love guarantee." It's all typical Gary Smalley "matriarchal manipulation," all within his well-worn psychoheretical framework. The endorsers on the back cover of the book are of interest. Not only has Smalley bagged the endorsements of such "Christian" stalwarts as Connie Sellecca and John Tesh, Kathie Lee Gifford, and John Gray (author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus), but DTS president Chuck Swindoll has signed on once again. (Swindoll endorsed Smalley'sLanguage of Love in 1989.) [Swindoll says, "If you're looking for an encouragement transfusion, Gary Smalley can't be beat." "Can't be beat"!? I thought it's the Word of God that gives encouragement? John Gray, a monk for nine years and former secretary to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, prides himself on bedding one woman per day for a year after leaving monkhood. That apparently gave him the "qualifications" for writing on the topic of the sexes. He's aNew Ager to boot! Why would Smalley seek such a man for a book endorsement?]

-  Promise Keepers is the gigantic new (1991) "men's movement" among professing evangelical Christians. Its roots are Catholic and charismatic to the core. PK's contradictory stand on homosexuality; its promotion of secular psychology; its unscriptural feminizing of men; its depiction of Jesus as a "phallic messiah" tempted to perform homosexual acts; and its ecumenical and unbiblical teachings should dissuade any true Christian from participating. Promise Keepers is proving to be one of the most ungodly and misleading movements in the annals of Christian history. Nevertheless, Smalley is a promoter of this ecumenical, charismatic, psychologized men's movement. He speaks frequently at PK's conferences and contributes his writings to its publications (e.g., the 1994 book Seven Promises of A Promise Keeper).

-  Smalley endorsed so-called Christian psychologist Dr. Larry Crabb's 1991 book, Men & Women: Enjoying the Difference [Crabb's model of counseling is primarily a psychological system of unconscious needs motivating behavior, which is derived from Freudian (the unconscious being a hidden reservoir of the mind with drives and impulses which govern a person's thinking and behavior) and humanistic psychology (with its hierarchy of needs, with great emphasis on so-called emotional needs).]: 
"You know Larry Crabb's latest book is a winner when you want your entire staff to read it and then schedule a weekend retreat to discuss and apply it."
* Must reading for anyone desiring a fuller understanding of Smalley's teachings would be pp. 211-223 of Prophets of PsychoHeresy II: Critiquing Dr. James C. Dobson (reissued as James Dobson's Gospel of Self-Esteem & Psychology), Martin and Deidre Bobgan, EastGate Publishers, Santa Barbara, CA, 1990, 310 pages; and "Gary Smalley: The Psychology of Matriarchy," Media Spotlight Special Report, Albert Dager, 1989, 4 pages. Some of the material in this report was excerpted and/or adapted from these sources.

Biblical Discernment Ministries - Revised 8/97

_________________________________________________________
JOHN TRENT: "SPEAKING INTO OTHERS' LIVES"
JOHN TRENT ON "MARRIAGE MENTORS"


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

NEW GUN BAN BILL IN CONGRESS, TARGETS SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES & HANDGUNS: “TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT UNLIMITED”

GUN PROHIBTION WILL BE AS BAD AS ALCOHOL PROHIBITION WAS;
GUNS NOT JUST FOR MILITIAS

Obama: Gun Control after UCC Shooting: NRA Very Effective, Knows How to Scare Politicians

WAYNE LA PIERRE OF THE NRA 
RESPONDS TO OBAMA
                             
GUN PROHIBITION COMING!?
It started with ammunition tax proposals
BY Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms.
It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.
States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.
Until now.
While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.
Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds. 
And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.
Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
…
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.
This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.
If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.
SEC. 3.RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
…
“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
…
“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The bill was introduced in Congress on December 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.
We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.
The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.
As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.
_______________________________________________________

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A resolution recently introduced in the Illinois state legislature threatens the natural and fundamental right of citizens of that state to keep and bear arms.



The non-binding measure — House Resolution 855  — would urge “the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state sponsored militias and not individuals.”



The text of the proposal recites a section of the dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens to the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008:



The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. 



Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.



The author of the Illinois resolution has built his measure on the weakest foundation: a misstatement of the Founders’ intent regarding the Second Amendment, its application to individuals, its support of self-defense, and the role of the militia.



First, with regard to the enshrinement of the right of self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens must not have read much of the writings of the leading men of the Founding Era.



Take these few examples:



In his commentary on the works of the influential jurist Blackstone, Founding-era legal scholar St. George Tucker wrote:



This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.



Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton explained:



If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.



And finally, this from the Declaration of Rights included in the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776:



“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state….”



In light of the foregoing, it is irresponsible for a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the clear and convincing evidence that the men of the Founding Era considered the natural right of self-defense to be one of the primary purposes, if not the primary one, of the protections included in the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.



Next, the author of the Illinois resolution assumes (incorrectly) that the word “militia” as used in the text of the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. There is no evidence to support this assumption.



In fact, the words of the Founders once again prove that the proposition soon to be considered in Illinois with regard to the Second Amendment’s use of the word “militia” is full of historical flaws and unsupported suppositions. 



In his book The Sword and Sovereignty, Dr. Edwin Vieira explains that “the term ‘[a] well regulated Militia, ’which the Second Amendment declares to be ‘necessary to the security of a free State,’ must have had a most definite meaning known to all among WE THE PEOPLE at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified — and a meaning which THE PEOPLE expected could not change absent an Amendment of the Constitution.” [Emphasis in original.]



What, then, is a constitutionally qualifying militia? 



Vieira provides historical and legal references that clear up any remaining controversy on the subject:



Even before the idea of the Constitution entered anyone’s head, “the Militia of the several States” (or, earlier, the Militia of the several American Colonies, with the partial, peculiar, and in any event not permanent exception of Pennsylvania) were established and maintained pursuant to statutes enacted throughout the 1600s and 1700s. In those Colonies and then all of the independent States, operations aimed at organizing, arming, and disciplining these Militia were conducted pursuant to these statutes. In those Colonies and States, the vast majority of the able-bodied adult free male inhabitants (other than conscientious objectors) personally possessed firearms, because those statutes imposed upon them a duty to keep and bear arms. 



And as a consequence of all this, throughout America in the pre-constitutional era existed “well regulated Militia” — the products of statutes which Americans had believed were so effective in achieving their ends that they had enacted them and reenacted them and reenacted them yet again, in form and substance, decade after decade and generation after generation.



T.J. Martinell echoed Vieira’s explanations in an article penned on December 22 for the Second Amendment advocacy group, ShallNot.org:



"Well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations of what weapons they could use. Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, declared that "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." And then there’s George Mason, considered the father of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, who defined the militia as "the whole people, except for a few public officials."



“The whole people,” not people in a militia that is “state sponsored” as required by the proposed Illinois resolution.



The third significant flaw in the Illinois disarmament resolution is the assumption that the Second Amendment allows any restriction on the right of anyone to keep or bear a firearm.



As readers are aware, the Second Amendment imposes on the federal government an unqualified proscription on constriction of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”



The phrase that pays: shall not be infringed. That means “shall not,” not “shall not unless a gun is used in a high-profile crime,” or “shall not unless the president issues an executive order infringing upon it,” or “shall not unless the weapon is made out of plastic.”



Despite what many pundits, journalists, and activists — even those considered “conservative” — would have Americans believe, there is no “reasonable” exception to the “shall not be infringed” phrase. Our Founding Fathers understood this very well. They knew, from sad personal experience with the oppression of tyrants, that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that protects all the other rights.



Finally, while it is true that our Founders never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to the states, the state constitution of Illinois contains language similar to that of the Second Amendment and provides a legal barricade high enough to block enforcement of the proposed resolution.



Section 22 of the Illinois state constitution mandates, “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”



Citizens of Illinois and her sister states are encouraged to check the progress of those who would see control of all weapons consolidated in the hands of the federal government and the state and national armed forces it controls. 



This is most easily and effectively accomplished by promoting state legislation specifically and explicitly protecting the God-given right of all men to own and use weapons in the defense of themselves and their liberty.


Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

TRUMP'S MERRY CHRISTMAS TWEET ANGERS MUSLIMS & LIBERALS FOR POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH~MUSLIMS RESPOND WITH "HATE SPEECH"

LUKE 2:14-"GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST"
Breitbart:
On Monday, Donald Trump said perhaps Americans should consider boycotting Starbucks for taking “Merry Christmas” off of their coffee cups and vowed that if he wins the presidential election, “we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”
Speaking at a Springfield, Illinois rally, Trump said that he is “speaking against myself” because “I have one of the most successful Starbucks in Trump Tower.”
He said he read about Starbucks’s plain red cups earlier in the day.
“Starbucks is taking Merry Christmas off. No more Merry Christmas on Starbucks. No More. I wouldn’t buy,” Trump said. “Maybe we should boycott Starbucks. I don’t know. Seriously, I don’t care. That’s the end of that lease, but who cares.”
He then vowed that Americans will be saying “Merry Christmas” again if Trump becomes President.
“I will tell you — lots of big things, lots of little things, you can call this anything you want, but if I become President, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” Trump said. “That I can tell you.”
ABOVE FROM: http://www.dailystormer.com/trump-were-all-going-to-be-saying-merry-christmas-again/

TRUMP: 
"WE'RE GOING TO SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS"


ONE NATION NOT UNDER ALLAH, BUT UNDER THE TRUE GOD

FROM OUR COLD DEAD HANDS: SELF PROTECTION CHRISTMAS GIFTS TO DEFEND CHRISTIANS AGAINST 
MUSLIM TERROR THREATS & MURDERS
LUKE 2:14-"GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST"

Trump's Merry Christmas Tweet Angers
Muslims and Liberals
Published on Dec 28, 2015
Muslims immediately responded with their own messages of “Hail Allah.” http://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-...

DONALD TRUMP POSTS CHRISTMAS MESSAGE TO SUPPORTERS – MUSLIMS AND LEFTISTS LEAVE NASTY RESPONSE

Muslims immediately responded with their own messages of “Hail Allah.”

BY: Jim Hoft | Gateway Pundit - DECEMBER 26, 2015
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:


Businessman Donald Trump posted a Christmas message of thanks to supporters on Twitter this week.





Muslims immediately responded with their own messages of “Hail Allah.”






The response he received almost immediately following the posting of this message, however, was probably not what he was expecting.



Instead of well wishes sent in return, dozens of Muslims commented “Allah Akbar” and “Hail Allah.” Other comments and replies included a few that said “I will bomb you,” hundreds of “racist!” declarations, and at least one instance of “I hope you choke on your Christmas food.”






trump allah akbar







MERRY CHRISTMAS TRUMP SUPPORTERS
































Posted by



at






















Labels:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

















        

      









Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)