Monday, February 19, 2018


 Do you have soyboys in your life that are goading you into a fruitless discussion on your right to defend yourself? Have you been told to politely engage with uselss people in a parle on your rights? 
Just say no, and say yes to standards.
 Dems Call For Banning Pro-Gun Speech, 
Claim It’s Russian Propaganda
 Dems waste no time in trying to grab all the guns they can and also trying to label gun talk as hate speech!
 Red Alert! Sen. Feinstein Introduces Bill 
To Ban All Semi-Autos
 Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) on Friday praised Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D., Calif.) proposed assault weapons ban for its lengthy definition of “assault weapon.”
 Dems Announce Plans To Repeal 
The 2nd Amendment
 Alex Jones breaks down the democrat establishment's plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.
 Left Wants Your Guns After Fomenting Imperialist Massacres
 Alex Jones delves into the history of massacres and details the recent phenomenon of copycat school shootings. The hypocrisy that the left would want the average citizen's second Amendment rights after recently fomenting untold bloodshed in other countries is as devious as global governance gets.
 Anti-Gun Lobby Planning March For Life
 Owen Shroyer lays out the hypocrisy laced within the intentions of the left as they organize and plan a "March For Our Lives" rally in the wake of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.
 Globalists Use Mourning Children 
To Advance Political Agenda
 Owen Shroyer exposes how globalist forces have been attempting to use the kids who died in the Parkland, Florida school shooting to advance their own anti-gun agenda.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Here is yet another example of how Leftist “journalists” present news articles designed to manipulate the public into holding the views they want them to hold. The Baltimore Sun’s Jonathan M. Pitts calls Hamas-linked CAIR “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group.” He adds that “Guandolo frequently cites the claim that CAIR itself supports terrorism, an assertion the group has repeatedly denied,” as if Guandolo is the one making that claim, when in fact it comes from the Justice Department.
Pitts didn’t see fit to inform his readers that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. A CAIR operative recently called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
If Pitts were a real journalist, he would have framed the story in exactly the opposite way: Hamas-Linked Group Tries to Force Naval Academy to Cancel Counterterror Expert. But no establishment media “reporters” would ever do that. Why not? Are they all paid off? Are they all so thoroughly indoctrinated?

“Muslim civil rights group asks Naval Academy alumni association to drop speaker,” by Jonathan M. Pitts, Baltimore Sun, February 16, 2018:
The nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group has called for the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association to cancel a scheduled speech by a Texas-based security professional it calls an “anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist.”
John Guandolo, a 1989 graduate of the Naval Academy, former FBI agent and frequent commentator on what he has described as “the Global Muslim Movement,” is slated to address a chapter of the alumni group at a luncheon in San Diego on Feb. 21.
The alumni group chapter describes Guandolo on its website as ”a powerful, dynamic and highly credible speaker.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations disagrees, calling Guandolo “an infamous Islamophobe” who has made unsupported claims against a wide range of Muslim-Americans and others.
It’s not the first time CAIR has opposed an appearance by Guandolo, a former U.S. Marine. In January, Trevecca Nazarene University in Tennessee canceled a scheduled presentation by Guandolo after CAIR voiced its opposition. The Amherst County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia did the same with a scheduled speech by Chris Gaubatz, a Guandolo employee.
Gaubatz is a vice president at Understanding The Threat, the Dallas-based company Guandolo founded to provide “strategic and operational threat-focused” training to law enforcement and others interested in countering what he calls as a network of militant jihadists in the U.S.
Guandolo frequently cites the claim that CAIR itself supports terrorism, an assertion the group has repeatedly denied. He could not immediately be reached for comment….


Karen Swallow Prior,
the gay-friendly animal rights activist and feminist is a research fellow for the ERLC 
and a contributor to The Gospel Coalition:
 "She might also – if she wasn’t a Marxist Manchurian candidate using Jesus as a way to inject the church with rabid feminism, animal liberation theology and general theological ugliness"
 Karen Swallow Prior, Ph.D., is a professor of English at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. She is the author of Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me (T.S. Poetry Press) and serves on the faith advisory council of the Humane Society of the United States. She and her husband, Roy, serve as deacons in their church and keepers of their 100-year-old homestead, where they live with their horses and dogs—and, more recently, Karen's mom and dad.
EXCERPT:  "Prior is a Research Fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, a Senior Fellow with Liberty University's Center for Apologetics and Cultural Engagement, and a member of the Faith Advisory Council of the Humane Society of the United States."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Karen Swallow Prior is a radical animal rights activist who believes animals go to Heaven because naming them gives them personhood, says she’s more upset over animal abuse than abortion, says abortion isn’t murder and calling it such is unchristlike, promoted erotic gay literature, and has attended gay fundraisers and uses gay-affirming language. She calls herself a feminist and attacks complementarianism as unbiblical.
Karen Swallow Prior is also a professor at Liberty University and a research fellow for the leftist Southern Baptist organization, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). The ERLC has been striving ardently to push amnesty for illegal aliens, and its president, Russell Moore, serves on the globalist Evangelical Immigration Table, which is funded by George Soros. In fact, the ERLC has even been caught retweeting anti-borders globalist propaganda produced by Soros.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Karen Swallow Prior (associated as she is with the ERLC), has been busy promoting an open-borders, globalist position on immigration that is disguised as Christian charitability. Of course, progressive-left faux-Christianity is always disguised as bleeding heart Christian charitability, so we should see it as of little surprise. Swallow Prior wrote an article for The News and Advance along with one of her students who is an illegal immigrant. The article guilt-shames Christians for not doing enough to help those in the country illegally, known as DREAMers.
The term, “DREAMer” comes from a 2001 piece of legislation and references the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act. The Act was never passed by Congress and the DREAMers (the minors it references) are not protected by any enacted law. In other words, “DREAMers” don’t really exist because the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act was never passed into law. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was a highly unconstitutional executive action by President Obama that would prioritize enforcing immigration law on childhood arrivals last, thus effectively legislating by executive fiat what was never passed by Congress.
The ERLC’s Russell Moore, the Progressive Liberals as the Social Gospel Coalition, Karen Swallow Prior and their acolytes (all of which are in one way or another beneficiaries of George Soros) have been trying to convince evangelical Christians that it is our responsibility to overthrow existing law, embrace illegal immigration as a Christian duty, and allow the executive branch of government to go unchecked.
Prior wrote the article with Bruno Yupanqui, who is a high school English teacher and a student of Swallow Prior’s at Liberty University. Yupanqui is an illegal immigrant, meaning that he came here criminally, against the laws of the United States and he remains here illegally, against the laws of the United States. Yupanqui writes:
…I don’t know how much longer I have to continue defending my humanity. I don’t know how much more I have to clarify that I’m more than just a statistic, whether that’s used positively or negatively. I don’t know how much more I have to continue telling others that I am American.
Because I am.
I am American when I teach students about Hawthorne’s short stories, or brag about how much the English language has changed over its life, from old to middle to modern. I am American when I donate money to just causes or donate blood two or three times a year. I was American when I purchased my first car on July 4, 2013, and when I bought a newer model exactly three years later.
Sadly, Yupanqui doesn’t know what it means to be an American. He thinks teaching English literature, donating blood or spending money here makes someone an American. In fact, three things make a nation; laws, borders and language. Without laws, borders and a common language there is no such thing as a nation-state. Yupanqui seems to have a grasp of our common language, but he is in violation of both our laws and borders. He has not taken a loyalty oath to the United States Constitution. He has not taken a test on the United States Constitution, as is required of immigrants who apply for Citizenship legally. He continues:
I have always been American, but it was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that made it official, however temporary.
Actually, not. Yupanqui has not always been an American, is not an American now and never has been. I mean that in the most literal of ways. In no meaningful, legal, constitutional, or real way is he an American; he is a foreign national living illegally in America. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore, DACA made nothing – absolutely nothing – official. It didn’t make a single person a Citizen. It simply meant that a United States President, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, chose to use his power of the Justice Department to order them to make enforcing U.S. law when it comes to childhood arrivals the last departmental priority. It made literally nothing official, and that’s the problem.
Then, the feminist, Karen Swallow Prior, writes:
Furthermore, as a Christian, I cannot ignore my neighbor Bruno — nor his fellow DACA recipients. Bruno is not only my former student; he is my brother in Christ, one who has served at my own church. Protecting Dreamers aligns with what the Bible tells us: All immigrants are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and deserve to be treated with dignity. Whatever policies we think best to advocate, Christians must not fail in this.
Of course, we Christians don’t want to ignore “Bruno,” nor do we want to ignore the sin of violating a nation’s laws and borders. While Bruno may be a “brother in Christ” (we strongly question whether or not Swallow Prior is a rightful judge of such things, her own Christianity being greatly suspect), there is absolutely no reason why being made in the image of God (which can be said of every criminal on the planet) means that we have to provide a path to Citizenship for people who are here against our nations’ legal provisions.
Swallow Prior makes statements that – at face value – all Christians can agree with. All people are made in God’s image and all people are due dignity. But what Prior means it is somehow our Biblical responsibility to show dignity by giving people an undeserved Citizenship and ignore the rule of law. The documentedly wicked woman writes:
Bruno has shared with me that his experiences of being undocumented, of hearing others (including fellow Christians) speak degradingly and derisively of “illegals,” has made him wonder why he would be considered an enemy rather than a brother in the faith. He has wondered why those with whom he worshipped, prayed and broke bread would treat the foreigners in their land so differently than the Bible commands.
Ms. Swallow Prior would be better off taking time to explain to Bruno that he doesn’t have a right to be in a country illegally, that the sin of his parents (yes, it is “sin”) has put him in the predicament where he now is, and that he is not entitled to Citizenship in the United States of America. Furthermore, if Ms. Swallow Prior was an expert in the Bible rather than in fiction, she might be able to explain that in the Bible, invaders in the land of Israel would be met with deadly force, and that criminal invaders are different than innocent sojourners traveling through. She might also – if she wasn’t a Marxist Manchurian candidate using Jesus as a way to inject the church with rabid feminism, animal liberation theology and general theological ugliness – have explained to her student some basic Biblical texts on the rule of law and role of government, like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ALSO: (Prior a supporter of Common Core)


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Christians have a theological view of the world that is given us by the Holy Scriptures. Our epistemology, that is what we believe is true and why, is predicated upon our conviction that the 66 books known as the ‘Holy Bible’ is inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and true. In the overarching worldview through which we see history, current events, and the world at large, Christians have room to accommodate the notion of evil. In fact, a primary doctrine of Christian theology for thousands of years has been the core belief that man is essentially bad. Mankind is a race of fallen creatures, suffering from the disease of wickedness which we have inherited from Adam. This negative anthropology is as much the heart of our religion as the solution to such a problem, who is Jesus. If we weren’t inherently bad, we wouldn’t need a Savior who is inherently good, who could reach into time and space and give us new natures that aren’t depraved.
Paul wrote it best in Romans 3, in which he painted an abysmal picture of the heart of man:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave;
 they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
This view of mankind as essentially evil is in stark contrast to the collective wisdom of our modern age, which holds to John Locke’s tabula rasa theorem that man is born with a blank slate. Locke’s hypothesis was a departure from classical Christian thought that man is born evil. It is peculiar, then, that the American Founding Fathers considered so heavily the work of Locke when designing our system of governance, which is contrastingly formed upon the Christian notion that people are naturally evil.
The Federalist Papers 51 addressed the topic of human depravity in relation to government head-on, and the famous quotation is most often attributed to James Madison:
The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Human nature, according to the Federalists, was inherently wicked. Because mankind does not consist of angels, it must have government. Because government is comprised of men, government must be limited, because even the governors are wicked. Therefore, the Founders saw fit to install a form of government in which the wickedness of man is checked and balanced at all levels, both for the governed and for the governors.
However, 21st Century American society has largely abandoned the negative Christian anthropology and adopted an indomitably positive anthropology that believes men – in general – are innately good. So then, when tragedies happen like what occurred this week at a Parkland, Florida public school, Christians and secularists have startlingly different perspectives on the problem and thus, the solution. Secularists have no theological framework to accommodate for the notion of evil. Postmodern in philosophy, secularists don’t believe in an absolute truth, and without absolute truth, there’s no such thing as immutable morality. With postmodern philosophy, what is “right” and “wrong” becomes little more than subjective opinion. Likewise, secularists have no theological framework to accommodate for evil because they are evolutionist in their biology. If there is no God, there is no Law Giver, and if there is no Law Giver, there is no law. And if there is no Law, there is no “evil,” in any real or meaningful sense. Therefore, both philosophically and biologically, secularists have to find different reasons for mass murder besides sheer wickedness. Christians, much more easily, call such behavior “wickedness, sin, depravity, or evil.”
For secularists, there must be some reason why this gunman murdered 17 innocent people other than that he is evil. Facts that have surfaced which lead one to believe the shooter was paranormally influenced by Satan, such as the Daily Mail reporting he heard the voices of demons or that he cut himself and banged his head against the wall, are dismissed by secularists as nothing but mental illness. Testimonies from classmates that he was “dark,” “evil,” or “demonic” are quickly overlooked as synonyms for “crazy.” And while the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs is a clear common denominator among almost all mass shooters – including this one – our secular society assumes that such prescriptions are the source of the problem and not a mere symptom of it.
For other secularists, the problem isn’t only mental illness but it is a crime-investigation system that is dysfunctional. The FBI was warned that he publicly stated on YouTube that he was going to be a school shooter, and they didn’t forward the concern on to the local field office that could investigate further. His Instagram account was a vocal cry for help. He conducted training exercises with a supposed White Nationalist group. He bragged about hurting animals. He had taken ammunition and other contraband to school. He wasn’t even allowed to school with a backpack because of the obviousness of his threats. He was abusive to his girlfriend. He was expelled for fighting. He was a “Peeping Tom,” a stalker, and stopped his mental health treatment. He has a sibling who has suffered from mental illness. If someone could compile a list of warning signs, the gunman’s page would set a record for “should have seen this coming.” In fact, his classmates are on record as vocally supposing it was him even during the shooting. For anyone paying attention to the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they might include “law enforcement incompetency” as another reason why this tragedy occurred.
For even more secularists, the problem is the easy access to firearms. Like so many other mass shooters, this gunman chose as his weapon the most widely-owned rifle in America, the AR-15. It is a black, scary, and ominous looking rifle. For many, it doesn’t matter that this rifle has the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle that is commonplace in more than forty million homes. It doesn’t matter, to many, that this carbine has no better functionality to kill than most hunting rifles. To those secularists, the problem isn’t that the gunman was evil; it’s that the gun itself was evil. Oddly enough, even a secular society can see evil within inanimate objects, even though they aren’t capable of seeing evil within the hearts of men. This is because for secularists, there really is no “heart” at all in an evolutionary view of humanity; there is only the brain, and that brain isn’t evil (because evil requires a good, and good is subjective), but it must be mentally ill. So then, Parkland Florida students and certain members of the community are shouting “shame on you” to legislators for not doing more to curb Second Amendment freedoms because to them, it’s the guns that are the problem.
However, for Christians, we recognize that sometimes the problems in someone’s head are nothing but an extension of the problems in someone’s heart. We recognize that some people are wicked, and they don’t shoot up innocent people because they’re driven to by madness, but by sheer hatred. More often than not, these mass murderers commit their crimes with cold calculation and forethought in a way that a truly mentally ill person is incapable. Their minds are functioning at high capacity; it is their soul that is ill.
Likewise, Christians recognize that if one evil man is a danger, then a hundred wicked men are even worse. We recognize that a society without a means to protect itself from a government that is more wicked than this mass murderer, it will lead to only more carnage but on a much more massive scale. We recognize that the words of Madison are still true, that it’s because of the evil of human nature that the Citizenry must always be prepared to curtail the power of a government that is comprised of men, who from time to time are capable of extreme wickedness. We, as Christians, are not blind to world history, in which an unarmed Citizenry has been murdered far more efficiently and methodically than this gunman could ever have imagined. This man’s offense pales in comparison to that of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pasha, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Yahya Kahn and those mass murders conducted by countless warlords and despots even today, in smaller numbers and more easily overlooked because of their unfortunate impertinence to American life, but far more orderly and successful than any school shooting in the United States. We believe that evil on a small scale should not overshadow the possibility of evil on a large scale, perhaps even conducted by a legally constituted government.
It is the negative Christian anthropology that allows us to blame certain actions upon the not-overly-simplistic reality of evil that makes us unwilling to give up our only earthly defense against it, which is the use of force. Because we recognize that there will always be wolves, we refuse to turn ourselves into unarmed sheep. For the secularist who believes ultimately that the government is the closest thing to God in the world, they hold out optimistic hope that with enough laws and government control, tragedies will not occur. In doing so, they tragically overlook the reality that more times than not, the government itself can be a far greater evil. We Christians believe that evil will be in this world until Jesus comes in his fullness, and until then, we have to be realists and prepare ourselves to confront it.
From a Christian worldview, the ownership of weapons is a necessary protection against evil. While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’s dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.
A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 8:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.
Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.
David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.
Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.
So then, it is because of these deep-seeded differences in theological worldviews that we Christians refuse to be disarmed. We recognize that evil people will always do evil things and that they will find ways (guns or not) to accomplish such things. So then, recognizing the reality of evil, we’ve chosen the best course of action to repel that evil in the temporal realm; chiefly, this means having the right to keep and bear arms, a right our Constitution says, “Shall not be infringed.”