Tuesday, June 19, 2018






SBC Leader Russell Moore Goes on CNN to Decry Immigration Policy

Southern Baptist Writer Accuses Attorney General of “Subverting Christianity” with Biblical Defense of Immigration Policy

Russell Moore Denies Knowledge of Revoice (LGBT) Conference and Gives Karen Swallow Prior Glowing Accolades

ERLC Allegedly Has Dallas PD Toss Pastor From SBC Meeting After He Questions “Revoice”

Revoice, Concupiscence, and Cosmic Treason

SBC Messengers Reinstate ERLC Trustee in Support of Russell Moore

SBC Resolution On Social Media is “Truly Dangerous,” 

Says Dr. Robert Gagnon



SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
This is not just about the Southern border. Jihad Watch reported last April that “the U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was ‘blatant religious discrimination.’”
Is it really?
And do the U.S. Catholic bishops feel any obligation to support measures that would protect Americans from jihad attacks? Apparently not. The message that the bishops are sending to Americans is simple: drop dead. The U.S. Catholic bishops appear to be absolutely unconcerned about the following facts: Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppersin St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University. 72 jihad terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban.
What’s more, all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.
The bishops have never expressed any concern about any of this. They are completely in line with Pope Francis, who has claimed risibly that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” This has become a super dogma in the Catholic Church: if you don’t believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, you will be ruthlessly harassed and silenced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the hierarchy elsewhere as well. The bishops of the Catholic Church are much more concerned that you believe that Islam is a religion of peace than that you believe in, say, the Nicene Creed. And so what possible reason could there be to be concerned about these “refugees”? It’s a religion of peace!
The bishops, of course, have 91 million reasons — indeed, 534 million reasons — to turn against the truth and disregard the safety and security of the American people: “In the Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs.”
And now, with Catholics all over the country, some quite prominent, publicly denying basic aspects of the Catholic Faith, the U.S. bishops are considering barring people from communion for their political views.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
It was not always thus. For centuries, in fact, as I detail in my forthcoming book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of efforts to resist jihad aggression in Europe. In it, you’ll discover:
  • The Pope who was a true precursor of Pope Francis: he was harshly criticized by the Romans for failing to keep them safe from jihad attacks;
  • The Pope who answered a Byzantine Emperor’s call for help against the jihadis not by scolding him about how Islam was peaceful, but by calling on the rulers of Europe to send troops;
  • The Medieval Pope who called Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, a “son of perdition,” and called for Christians to unite against the advancing jihad;
  • What happened when a Mongol ruler sent an emissary across Central Asia and into Europe to meet the Pope and seek an alliance with the Christians against the forces of jihad;
  • The Pope who haughtily refused to come to the aid of the Christian Byzantine Empire when it was mortally threatened by jihadis, because of doctrinal differences;
  • The Pope who took a solemn oath at his consecration to “extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet”;
  • The Pope who touched off worldwide Muslim riots by noting that “God is not pleased by blood”;
  • Much more.
Click here to preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.
“Catholic bishops call Trump’s asylum rules ‘immoral,’ with one suggesting ‘canonical penalties’ for those involved,” by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post, June 13, 2018 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
Leading U.S. Catholic bishops on Wednesday escalated their criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, calling new asylum-limiting rules “immoral” and rhetorically comparing the crackdown to abortion by saying it is a “a right-to-life” issue.
One bishop from the U.S.-Mexico border region reportedly suggested “canonical penalties” — which could refer to withholding the sacrament of Communion — for Catholics involved in implementing the Trump policies.
The comments came as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — the organizing body of bishops — gathered for a biannual meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The topics of migration and asylum have long been a focus for the U.S. church; more than 50 percent of U.S. Catholics under the age of 30 are Latinos….


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
At its annual meeting in Chicago last week, the American Medical Association (AMA) expanded on its list of proposed “common-sense solutions” to the problem of “gun violence” that it has been proposing for years. AMA’s former president, David O. Barbe, M.D., claimed that gun violence is a public health crisis:
People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis. In emergency rooms across the country the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience. Every day physicians are treating suicide victims, victims of domestic violence, and men and women simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn’t have to be this way, and we urge lawmakers to act.
Inexplicably missing from Barbe’s comments was any mention of victims of car crashes being treated in emergency rooms (more than 37,000 die every year as a result of them in the United States), poisoning (more than 47,000 a year die from overdoses), or unintentional falls (more than 33,000 deaths). Perhaps it’s because automobiles are already registered, bottles of rat poison are commonly available at Amazon and recipes for making it are available on the Internet, and ladders aren’t considered “assault weapons.”  
But the AMA persists in offering its anti-gun “solutions” anyway, including 1) expanding ERPOs (extreme risk protection orders) and GVROs (gun violence restraining orders) to include not only family members but household visitors and dating partners; 2) prohibiting anyone under a domestic violence restraining order, convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime or stalking from possessing a firearm; 3) those under such orders have their data entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and 4) demanding that every school in the country be a “gun free zone” while opposing any school board’s requirements or incentives offered to teachers to carry weapons on campus.
But the biggest expansion of previously recommended incursions into precious rights is this: Delegates at the annual meeting supported banning “the sale and ownership to the public of all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets.” The AMA’s House of Delegates (HOD) went even further, demanding the licensing of every owner of a firearm in the country, and the registration of every firearm owned in the country.
Not content with these egregious breaches of Second- and Fourth Amendment-protected rights, the AMA’s HOD supported banning the possession and use of firearms and ammunition by “unsupervised youths under the age of 21.” Finally, the HOD opposed “concealed carry reciprocity” bills pending in Congress.
Back in 1973, the AMA had a fairly reasonable position on violence committed by criminals using a firearm. It proposed strict penalties on those using the weapons and not on the innocent law-abiding owners of firearms not involved in the commission of the crime: "While the increasing number of homicides by use of handguns is a depressing reality, and there is little evidence that new Federal gun control legislation will ameliorate this situation, the American Medical Association urges the enactment of strict penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of crimes."
By the 1980s, the AMA had reversed its position and began supporting various gun-control schemes. In 1988, for example, the AMA called for a ban on the new polymer Glock pistols because they were allegedly undetectable by metal detectors. It also called on the Consumer Products Safety Commission to regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms, which many saw as a precursor to shutting down the industry altogether.
In the 1990s, the AMA called for a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases along with a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and hollow-point self-defense ammunition. In 1992, the AMA Journal called for a national “system of gun registration and licensing for gun owners and users.”
To top off its expanded list of “solutions” to “gun violence,” the AMA has proposed more taxpayer funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct “research” on the causes and cures for “gun violence” and “the concept of gun buyback programs” as a way to get firearms out of the hands of criminals. The National Rifle Association calls this “the most blatant example of where AMA’s politics have trumped their reason” in light of studies going back decades showing that such voluntary buyback programs have been utterly useless in reducing gun violence by criminals.
The AMA aligns itself with other anti-gun groups such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Police Executive Research Forum, which the NRA characterizes as also having “lengthy histories of opposing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
In its expanded version of its previous “solutions,” the AMA is in lockstep with other anti-gun groups, proposing legislation that, if enacted, would move the Republic significantly further down the road to a police-state tyranny.
Related articles:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Minnesota Conference of the United Methodist Church has removed the term, ‘Father,’ from the Apostle’s Creed in an attempt to be more gender inclusive to God.
The ancient creed of the Christian Church reads:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead.
However, United Methodists in the Minnesota Conference decided that referring to God as “Father” wasn’t inclusive enough for the 21st century United Methodist Church. At the conference, held May 30 through June 1, conference organizers omitted reference to God the Father. Instead, they changed the phrase “God the Father Almighty” to “God the Creator Almighty.” The creed passed out to attendees also removed the phrase, “Jesus Christ, His only Son” to “Jesus Christ, God’s only Son.”
McIlwain is currently the pastor of Slippery Rock United Methodist Church in Pennsylvania. Mcilwain said, “No United Methodist individual or body has the authority to edit those creeds which were formulated by the early Church and have helped define orthodox Christianity for the better part of 2000 years.”
The United  Methodist Church has repeatedly become more egalitarian in the early twenty-first and latter twentieth century, beginning with the ordaining of female clergy with full ordination rights in 1956. The roots of the egalitarian movement among Methodists began, however, with the 18th century female preacher, Mary Bosanquet Fletcher, convincing John Wesley that some women should be given limited preaching abilities. In most recent days, the United Methodist Church has been drained of male clergy, with more than 10,300 female clergy members nationwide.
United Methodist Church website provides a blog explaining the concept behind removing the “Father” understanding of God (taught by Jesus and the rest of Scripture). In the following quotiation, their use of the term, “God language,” means language used by people to refer to God:
  1. Leaders need to establish the ground rules: Everybody’s God language is appropriate. People’s God language signifies a relationship that you can’t interfere with. You can raise questions and offer additional perspectives, but you can’t dictate. You can’t prohibit anybody from using any language about God. Whether they want to call God “Jehovah” or “Big Dog,” you can’t judge the validity of how that name connects them with God. People just need to get used to that.
  2. Pastors and other leaders should give attention to teaching people what the church’s traditional images mean and what they don’t mean. For instance, the “fatherhood” of God is about relationship, not biology. Our people won’t know how to reflect theologically about these things — instead of just reacting emotionally — unless we give them the tools.
  3. Pastors and other worship leaders should expose people to a variety of images of God, both familiar and new, both comforting and provocative. People should regularly hear God referred to in public worship with images that are male, female, and gender neutral. In a worship service the choir may sing an anthem with thickly sexist, male-dominated language, while the prayers are full of feminine imagery. People can sing their own words, with their personal substitutions, if they wish. People should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own faith. 
In the meantime, Jesus taught us to pray, “Our Father, who art in Heaven…”


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Merkle and Trump at G 7 Meeting Quebec
Written by  William F. Jasper  June 12, 2018
The globalists and their paid media shills are still ranting and fuming over President Trump’s refusal to play along with Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, and the other G7 leaders at the summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, this past weekend. They are especially agitated over his refusal to sign on to the Charlevoix G7 Summit Communique at the close of the gathering. The statements issued at the conclusions of G7 summits are not legally binding, but they are important as “consensus” roadmaps that the G7 heads of state can brandish to prod their legislative bodies into adopting the agreed-upon multilateral agenda. Like the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, the G7 (Group of 7 — the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Italy) is wont to issue flowery, noble-sounding statements freighted with traps and hidden meanings.
As we reported on June 11 following the summit (Globalists Fulminate Over Trump Smack to G7, New World Order), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and a past attendee of the secretive Bilderberg confabs, lamented on CNN that President Trump had gone against “our best allies” at Charlevoix by not signing the G7 Communique, which, she insisted, “stands for everything we stand for.”
Does the Charlevoix G7 Communique truly stand for everything we — the American people — stand for? This writer commented on that point in the June 11 article mentioned above, noting: “The G7 Communique to which Senator Feinstein so reverentially refers is hardly a manifesto that we should endorse, and we may consider ourselves fortunate that President Trump did not sign on to it. Besides endorsing the World Trade Organization, the UN’s Agenda 2030, the UN’s fraudulent Paris Agreement on global warming, the UN’s phony sustainable development, and a passel of additional socialist, globalist programs … the G7 Communique is a paean to multilateralism, and like all of its G7 predecessors, a prescription for step-by-step advancement toward a world government run by unaccountable globalist elites.”

Moreover, we could add that the newest G7 manifesto further commits the endorsing nations to push for more invasive and punitive taxes, even greater government spending (called “investing” in New World Order-speak), more onerous government surveillance (ostensibly to fight tax evasion and provide more security against terrorism and internet crime), and further exploitation of the conflicts and crises in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and elsewhere, a virtual guarantee for involving us in perpetual wars all across the globe.
Now, let’s look at some specifics in the Charlevoix G7 Summit Communique to see why Americans should be thanking President Trump for refusing to sign it. (The full, official text of the document is available here on the G7 website). As is customary, it opens with broad, vanilla-flavored lines about prosperity, sustainability, equality, etc. It states:
We, the Leaders of the G7, have come together in Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada on June 8-9, 2018, guided by our shared values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and our commitment to promote a rules-based international order. As advanced economies and leading democracies, we share a fundamental commitment to investing in our citizens and meeting their needs and to responding to global challenges. We collectively affirm our strong determination to achieve a clean environment, clean air and clean water. We are resolved to work together in creating a healthy, prosperous, sustainable and fair future for all.
Point three of the 28-point Communique states:
In order to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, we will exchange approaches and support international efforts to deliver fair, progressive, effective and efficient tax systems. We will continue to fight tax evasion and avoidance by promoting the global implementation of international standards and addressing base erosion and profit shifting. The impacts of the digitalization of the economy on the international tax system remain key outstanding issues. We welcome the OECD interim report analyzing the impact of digitalization of the economy on the international tax system. We are committed to work together to seek a consensus-based solution by 2020.
The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), an affiliated organization of the United Nations, is a major promoter of more extensive and oppressive taxation, and when globalists at the G7, UN, and OECD talk about fighting tax evasion, they really mean they’re going to find more ways to squeeze more money out of the middle classes. Point four of the Communique is a promotion for the World Trade Organization (WTO) noting a commitment to making “bilateral, regional and plurilateral agreements [are] open, transparent, inclusive and WTO-consistent.” It also states: “We commit to modernize the WTO to make it more fair as soon as possible.” Modernization proposals invariably are designed to make the WTO more powerful, but don’t count on it getting more fair or just.
Point seven of the G7 Communique is a promo for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, its plan for global socialism. Realizing that it cannot rally taxpayers of the developed countries to provide more “public financing” for its programs, the G7-UN-OECD crowd has come up with “blended finance,” in which globalist bankers and other private “investors” will chip in billions of dollars, but these contributions will be backed up, naturally, with public guarantees and insurance. This means, of course, that when the “sustainable development” projects turn out to be unsustainable and go bust, the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out. More details on this clever arrangement are to be found in the Charlevoix Commitment on Innovative Financing for Development, which the signatories of the Communique say they are committed to.
Point 22 states: “Africa’s security, stability, and sustainable development are high priorities for us, and we reiterate our support for African-led initiatives, including at a regional level. We reiterate our commitment to work in partnership with the African continent, supporting the African Union Agenda 2063 in order to realize Africa’s potential.” That might sound great, until you look a bit closer at the details. The New American’s Alex Newman, who has reported extensively on the African Union, wrote in 2016 that “Under the African Union’s so-called Agenda 2063, a Soviet-style, United Nations-backed 50-year plan to empower undemocratic supranational institutions and centralize coercive power, the peoples of the continent will be merged into one giant mass for easier control.”
Point 23 of the Communique restates the G7’s continued support for the UN’s ludicrous, ongoing jihad against carbon dioxide and for the UN’s upcoming conference on global warming (yes, another one). It says:
A healthy planet and sustainable economic growth are mutually beneficial, and therefore, we are pursuing global efforts towards a sustainable and resilient future that creates jobs for our citizens. We firmly support the broad participation and leadership of young people, girls and women in promoting sustainable development. We collectively affirm our strong determination to achieve a clean environment, clean air, clean water and healthy soil. We commit to ongoing action to strengthen our collective energy security and demonstrate leadership in ensuring that our energy systems continue to drive sustainable economic growth. We recognize that each country may chart its own path to achieving a low-emission future. We look forward to adopting a common set of guidelines at UNFCCC COP 24 [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 24th Conference of the Parties].”
Point 24 continues in the same vein, pledging “strong commitment to implement the Paris Agreement” by “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Union.” The European Union? Yes, the EU participates in the G7, but does not enjoy voting status there — yet.
There is more than enough in the plain text of the Communique to warrant rejection by all liberty-minded individuals. However, that is not the whole of it. Imbedded within the text are endorsements of various programs and projects of the World Bank, OECD, World Health Organization, WTO, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, the Paris Club, and the following G7 positions, each of which is fraught with dangerous proposals:
This writer would dare any reasonable American to read each of these documents without coming to the conclusion that they are larded with innumerable dangerous traps that we should never get near, let alone endorse. Instead of being bashed, trashed, slammed, and insulted for refusing to sign this treacherous “communique,” President Trump should be thanked profusely for taking this unprecedented, sensible, and courageous action.