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.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CNN has sued Donald Trump. And Chief of Staff John Kelly, Deputy Chief William
Shine, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the Secret Service.
The complaint? The White House suspended the press pass of the
anti-Trump’s network chief Trump hater, Jim Acosta (shown), after he
prevented an intern from taking the microphone from him during a press
conference. The evil White House, the lawsuit claims, trespassed CNN’s and
Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, and demands a jury trial to
put the miscreant president in his place. Microphone Fight The trouble began
when Acosta, as per usual, began arguing with the president. Acosta’s
antics at press conferences with the president or his aides follow a
pattern. Typically, he asks a preposterously loaded question he likely
crafted after perusing leftist websites for talking points he can
disguise as questions. Then, If he doesn’t get the answer he wants, he
starts arguing the left-wing talking points.
That’s what happened last week when he squabbled with the president about his description of the migrant horde heading north through Mexico. Trump accurately called it an “invasion.”
Leftist Acosta disagreed vehemently and accused the president of
“demonizing” the migrant army. Then Acosta took him to task for the
brilliant midterm campaign ad that featured an illegal-alien murderer
and images of the migrant horde storming north. Trump repeatedly told
the leftist agitator “enough,” but Acosta continued the verbal feud. An
intern approached him to take away his microphone, but Acosta refused
to yield and prevented the young woman from taking the mic.
And that, as Sanders tweeted, was the last straw: “We will ... never
tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman.” The White House
lifted Acosta’s press pass.
Acosta accused Sanders of lying, and the media backed him up, as did the Washington Post in its rendition of the lawsuit. The Post story sought multiple sources to claim the White House banned Acosta because of his views.
We aren’t supposed to know what Acosta’s “views” are, given his
position, but that isn’t why the White House banned him. Acosta knows
that, and so do his enablers, sycophants, and sympathizers.
The Lawsuit The lawsuit contains a litany of complaints against the president, not least his remarks about CNN.
Of course, Trump is the first president who has had the nerve to
attack the leftist media with the same vigor with which it attacks him,
one of the main sources of the media’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. And
much of that TDS, The New American has reported, Acosta himself has promoted.
The lawsuit, which says Trump admitted that Acosta’s actions were not
“overly ... horrible,” details its version of events and accuses
Sanders of publicizing an “apparently doctored” video of Acosta’s ugly
behavior.
“Defendants’ decision to revoke Acosta’s press credentials violates
the First Amendment,” the lawsuit avers, because “Plaintiffs’ access to
the White House, their coverage of the November 7, 2018 press
conference, and Acosta’s questions to President Trump during that
conference are and were all protected activities under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Actually, the First Amendment does not protect fighting with interns,
but in any event “defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to
access the White House Grounds.”
The White House also trespassed CNN’s and Acosta’s Fifth Amendment right to due process, the lawsuit avers,
because “Plaintiffs have protected liberty and property interests” in
Acosta’s credentials and access to the White House. “Absent his
credentials, he cannot serve as a White House correspondent.”
As well, “defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a written
explanation, nor any explanation at all, before revoking Acosta’s press
credentials,” which isn’t strictly true given Sanders’s tweet.
The lawsuit also claims the suspension violated federal law
and that the White House “had no legal or rational justification to
revoke Acosta’s credentials.” Fighting with the intern and Acosta’s
intemperate, discourteous attitude, the lawsuit says, “is not sufficient
as a matter of law.”
The lawsuit also demands a jury trial. He Deserved ItAcosta might well have had it
coming. He is openly hostile to the president not only in press
conferences but also on the air when reporting. In recounting his
shenangians last week on Anderson Cooper’s program, for instance, he flatly called the midterm anti-caravan ad “racist.” Acosta has also led the campaign against the president for pushing back against the media
_________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30629-sanders-acosta-inappropriately-refused-to-yield?vsmaid=2001&vcid=3987
Over 100 Public Comments over Sen. Chow's anti-LGBTQ rhetoric Lalee Ibssa reports on last night's ASUC Senate meeting where community
members call for Sen. Isabella Chow to resign over anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
Rob Shimshock: Christian Student Senator Refuses To Resign
BERKELEY STUDENT SENATOR FACES PRESSURE TO RESIGN AFTER STANDING FOR BIBLICAL VIEW
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
BERKELEY, Calif. — A student senator at the University of California at Berkeley
is facing pressure to resign after she abstained from voting on a resolution that
expressed opposition to an alleged plan by the federal Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to legally define sex under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 as being one’s biological sex at birth.
According to reports, the Queer Alliance Resource Center, a
homosexual and transgender advocacy group on campus, had urged the
Berkeley student Senate to pass a resolution condemning the reported
move by HHS. All voting senators supported the bill.
“[T]he HHS’s proposed ‘definition’ is purposefully trans-exclusive,
as it seeks to create an understanding of sex and gender that is fixed,
determined by genitalia at birth, and limited to the binary (i.e. the
options being either male or female),” the resolution before the student
Senate read.
“[T]he Trump administration’s suggested definition of sex does not
take into account that ‘biological sex’ has little to do with gender,”
it asserted.
The resolution opined that the proposed adjustments to Title IX “rob
transgender, non-binary, and otherwise gender non-conforming students of
their right to seek legal recourse for discrimination,” and therefore,
the students stand “in firm opposition to the Trump administration’s
proposed definition of sex.” However, Isabella Chow, a junior who serves on the student Senate,
decided to abstain from voting as she could not in good conscience
support the resolution. She delivered a statement to her peers outlining why she could not
join the others in voting, prefacing her remarks with the notation that
she opposes bullying and bigotry, and believes that Christ would have
her to be loving and compassionate to all men. “My God is one who assigns immeasurable value to and desires to love
each and every human being,” Chow said. “In God’s eyes and therefore my
own, every one of you here today and in the LGBTQ+ community as a whole
is significant, valid, wanted and loved—even if and when our views
differ.”
However, love, she outlined, does not condone choices that are not
the best for another person. Therefore, after consulting with various
Christian leaders and advisors, Chow concluded that she could not be a
part of the resolution.
“That said, I cannot vote for this bill without compromising my
values and my community that elected me to represent them,” she
continued. “As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain
lifestyles and acts conflict with what is good, right and true. I
believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and
designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.”
“For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur
when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are
right or the best for you as an individual.” Read Chow’s statement in full here.
Chow was soon met with backlash as a petition was organized by the Queer Alliance Support Center calling for her resignation.
“In the senator’s prepared speech, she expressed blatantly homophobic
and transphobic views, declaring LGBTQ+ individuals’ identities ‘in
conflict with what is good, right and true,’ and stating that she
‘[does] not believe that [our] choices are right or the best for [us],'”
the petition read.
“Senator Chow proclaims ‘love for all people’ and, yet, invalidates
queer, trans, and non-binary identities as ‘immoral life choices,'” it
stated.
The group said that it has concerns over how Chow would vote on similar matters in the future.
“Normalizing acts of hate—even in the form of a pretty speech and a
vote to abstain, and especially when it comes from an elected official
whose role is to represent the whole of the UC Berkeley student
body—will not be tolerated,” it remarked.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle,
more than 1,000 people have signed the petition. The outlet also
reports that hundreds attended a recent meeting calling for Chow’s
ousting, and students have posted remarks on social media labeling her a
“horrible person” and a “mental imbecile.”
The student newspaper, The Daily Californian, additionally published
an article critical of Chow, but refused to print her defense because it
“reinforced” her initial speech, which “utilized rhetoric that is
homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.” Banners on
campus additionally read “Senator Chow Resign Now.”
“No matter how much I tried to say, ‘I can love you and still
disagree with you,’ people still interpret my disagreement with being a
bigot and a hater,” Chow lamented to the San Francisco Chronicle.
She also told Campus Reform that she is trusting God to use the matter for the good, and hopes that the situation will spark dialogue about the issue.
“As a Christian, I believe that God redeems and he uses all
situations for the good of those who love Him. There is so much
happening, and even though it’s been a really, really rough week for me,
I know that God is working and I know that he is using this to
strengthen the Church, to awaken the Church in a sense,” she stated.
“There’s a Christian community on campus that has been praying for me
and encouraging me throughout all this. And if I don’t represent their
views, who else will?”
Chow says she has no plans to resign.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Dear Lighthouse Trails:
I recently began readingA Time of Departing.A very well-documented book. I am blown away by the amount of researchRay Yungenput into that book! Thank you for publishing it. Thank you also for your posts dealing with theSpiritual Formation movement, contemplative prayer, etc. I do not know exactly how I first got onto the scent of the Spiritual Formation trail about two years ago, but I think it was through research I was doing into some “worship” songs that were being used at our church. While concerned for different reasons, I was introduced into Bethel Church (directly through our church’s music selection) and Spiritual Formation indirectly as I was becoming aware of the broader things that ail the “evangelical” church. Initially, I was concerned enough about what I was discovering about Spiritual Formation to learn more about it, but at the same time I was thinking, “this is important to know about, but I can’t see this affecting the Christian circles I run in.”
I was wrong.
After gaining a basic understanding on the ideas and players in Spiritual Formation, I moved on to other things. It was about six months later that our church (a small rural church) called a new pastor. It was kind of a “shot-gun” marriage so to speak. The elders announced they had found their candidate, he would preach in church on the following Sunday, a Q&A would follow the service, and a vote would be held two days later. Yikes! As the Q&A began that Sunday, there was the initial awkward silence. No questions. I was thinking, “Good grief, this most likely will be our new pastor, we know next to nothing about him, and no one has any questions!” So I raised my hand to ask a question. Keep in mind that I am in introvert extraordinaire so I am about the last person to ordinarily speak in such a situation. What question(s) does one ask in such a situation when rightfully a million questions should be asked? I asked this: “What pastors/theologians do you read?” I figured as with a book, the footnotes would give as much information on the content of the book as could be ascertained in such a short time. His reply, among other names, includedBrennan ManningandJohn Ortberg. . . . That day there were one or two other questions on his philosophy of ministry and that was about it. The rest of the questions were small talk: dogs, cats, kids, weather, etc. I was quite disappointed that the members of the church seemed to care so little about his beliefs. . . . The pastor was voted in as fully expected.
A few months later, a message went out to the women of the church from the pastor’s wife inviting them to go to an area church for the IF:Gathering. I had never heard of theIF:Gatheringbefore, but thought I’d look it up. As you know, it is quite new so I could not find much information on it. Since the conference seemed to be flying under the radar, I began looking up who past speakers had been. Needless to say when I saw the likes of Jen Hatmaker and Christine Caine, I became concerned. It didn’t take me long to stumble across one of the speakers referring to “contemplative prayer.” Then another woman making the same reference. I began looking for connections between the other women and Spiritual Formation/Contemplative Prayer; it seemed like it was one right after another.Now this stuff IS showing up in the circles I run in!It just took a pastor and his wife who are big into the “conference culture” to bring it to us; the “conference culture” is new to our church and its absence had spared us from many of the things that ail evangelicalism.
At this point, I knew I could not be silent. I approached our pastor about my concerns. This is the first time I have approached a pastor about something that I have adamantly disagreed about, and that is no small thing for an introvert like me. One evening, we met and I read for about 1.5 hours the things that these women had written, said, and people that they quoted (the heretical, mystical, universalist Richard Rohr seemed to be their favorite person to quote). I think the pastor was taken aback both by what these women believed and that I was able to produce so much horrid material on them. I only read him their own words; I did not read him your blog (or anyone else’s) because I figured anything that was not original source material might be dismissed as opinion/speculation. He agreed that the mysticism was bad, but that they didn’t teach this stuff at the conference because his wife has gone before and she has good discernment. To me it does not matter if they teach this stuff or not, you are leading people to teachers who are into dangerous things. The claim that they do not “teach” this stuff at the conference may or may not be true, but IF:Gathering does sell on their website books on theDesert Fathersand Mothers, books written by Catholic spiritual directors, they include Richard Foster in their material, and they gave awayPete Scazzero’sbookEmotionally Healthy Spiritualityto the live conference attendees this year.
Our pastor said he would think about what to do. Fortunately, he told the church that the church would no longer advertise the event due to some of the beliefs of the speakers. Unfortunately, his wife hosted the webcast conference as a private event in their home; about 1/3 of the women of the church attended.
There have been additional things that have occurred at church since then that very much make my future in that church quite uncertain.
I wanted to bring to your attention Chris and Phileena Heuertz. You mention each in passing in a couple of your blog posts, but nothing too in-depth. I first became aware of Phileena when I was researching Shauna Niequist for the IF:Gathering. Shauna is big into contemplative spirituality, and Phileena is the one who taught her Centering Prayer. Also, Shauna haswritten the forewordto one of Phileena’s books. Phileena Heuertz is a very memorable name, so while I did not devote too much attention to her in my research of Shauna, the name stuck with me.
Recently, the ladies of our church were invited to another upcoming women’s conference. Two of the speakers have been speakers at IF:Gathering. But there are two new faces, one of which is the “campus pastor” of the “conservative” Christian college hosting the event. She has a degree in Spiritual Formation and is into the Enneagram. When I looked further into her, I found that she has written an endorsement of Chris Heuertz’s book,The Sacred Enneagram. Furthermore, she has had Chris Heuertz [Phileena’s husband] speak a few times at that college’s chapels. Chris recently spoke at a local church on theEnneagram. He and his wife are constantly traveling and speaking at such events.Richard Rohris a spiritual mentor to them both; Rohr serves on the board of directors of their organization (https://gravitycenter.com/home-page/host/community/board-of-directors/); another board member is a Muslim woman.
Anyway, I keep seeing this couple appear. I don’t know if their presence is growing or if I am just seeing them more because I know the name. I have never seen anything from either of these two that remotely approaches the Gospel. They are very much into interspirituality.
Much could be said about this couple, but here are a few things for your consideration:
This short video by Chris on his book is so un-Biblical it’s unbelievable that he would be permitted into a “conservative” evangelical college:https://gravitycenter.com/sacredenneagram/
A recent tweet from Chris showing his un-biblical worldview:
Here is a flavor of Phileena’s view on spirituality as seen in her recent reTweet: We are all of one religion? Really? More evidence where this mysticism really does lead.
Her tribute to Thomas Keating [who just died] (what an apropos photo to choose):
Anyway, I want to put this couple on your radar as they are up to no good and they are gaining acceptance into the evangelical church.
Blessings.
Jake
(photo: from bigstockphoto.com; used with permission)
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Infowars Action Alert Are you upset about Tuesday’s election? Think Republicans should have not only held the House but also increased their majority?
Today, the censorship of conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, and disaffected Democrats is worse than ever.
Donald Trump was able to win in 2016 only because there was a vibrant, robust, and fully accessible new media on the Internet.
Together We Ignited The Trump Revolution
Now, the Democrats and their giant contributors in Silicon Valley
and Big Tech want to systematically snuff out our ability to
communicate our pro-Trump views. They hope to use this censorship to
throttle Donald Trump in an impeachment battle. We saw this in the
recent Kavanaugh fight, where he prevailed, despite duplicitous attacks
from the mainstream media.
This is why we lost the House and many important governorships,
despite solid gains in the Senate with two Democrats who voted against
Kavanaugh going down.
It is clear that Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and
YouTube colluded in the coordinated use of various techniques to limit
the reach of conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters. This is
coupled with outright deception, bans on Twitter, de-platforming
millions on Facebook, as well as mass censorship on Reddit and
demonetization on Youtube.
These acts violate federal anti-competitive and anti-trust laws.
They are using these monopolistic and illegal tactics to snuff
out our First Amendment rights and compete in any future election.
The very future of the Trump presidency, the future of the
president’s reform agenda, and indeed Donald Trump’s legacy are entirely
contingent to a level playing field on the internet.
You Can Take Action Now
We plan to send one million letters to direct Trump’s new acting
Attorney General to move aggressively against the anti-competitive and
illegal racketeering by these tech giants to restore a free and
unfettered internet where all opinions can be heard.
Sign The Letter Now
We pay the postage! We will deliver your letter to the post
office along with hundreds of thousands of others. You also have the
option of printing out and mailing your letter directly to the
president.
Please act today! America’s future depends on it. Go to writetrump.com now.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
BRINDISI, Italy — The United Nations is seriously stepping up its
campaign to undermine free speech, online freedom, and a surge in
opposition to globalism worldwide. Pointing to what it calls
“international law” against racism and “intolerance,” the UN is
demanding a global crackdown on fundamental human rights as well as what
is described as “nationalist populism.” In particular, the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment must go. As part of the attack, political
and economic ideas the UN hates — populism, concern about corrupt
elites, nationalism, individual liberty, borders, and more — are also
now officially in the UN’s crosshairs. Basically, opposition to
globalism and open borders is now racism that must be crushed by
government, according to the arguments made in a new UN report
to the UN General Assembly and the UN “Human Rights Council.”
Christians and conservatives have a giant UN bullseye painted on their
back. The threat to the most basic liberties and national identity from the
UN is deep and broad. And it is becoming increasingly obvious. From
disgorging reports demanding laws criminalizing freedom of speech, to
re-appointing an actual Chinese Communist to run the agency they hope will regulate the Internet,
the UN is getting bolder in its escalating assault on even the most
basic freedoms. It even labeled British politicians and media as racists
this month for challenging an unhinged UN “investigation.” The UN
attacks also come amid growing efforts by the European Union and Big Tech giants to censor the World Wide Web
— and to silence all critics of globalism, homosexuality, open borders,
Islam, and more. However, as that happens, the globalist would-be
speech controllers are increasingly being defied and ridiculed by the
public around the world.
The
latest shoe to drop in the UN war on speech came from fringe leftist
activist Tendayi Achiume (shown), whose formal title is literally “UN
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” According to her
biography at UCLA, the assistant law professor's work focuses on “the
global governance of racism and xenophobia.” In other words, she is a
globalist and a professional race hustler hoping to implement global
speech controls. Another one of her interests is flooding what remains
of Western Christian civilization with massive immigration from alien
cultures, part of what she calls “Migration as Decolonization.” Achiume,
identified by the UN as a Zambian, also has worked for South Africa's
notoriously corrupt judicial system dominated by the African National
Congress (ANC) and its South African Communist Party controllers.
In a new report to the discredited UN “Human Rights Council,”
Achiume claims “ascendant nationalist populist ideologies and
strategies pose a sobering threat to racial equality by fuelling
discrimination, intolerance and the creation of institutions and
structures that will have enduring legacies of racial exclusion.”
Translated into normal English, for Americans who do not inhabit the
tax-funded world of far-left academia, Achiume is claiming that the
agenda promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump, Brazilian President Jair
Bolsonaro, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and many other
national leaders, is racist and illegal. Ironically, the UN “human
rights” outfit
is literally dominated by mass murderers and tyrants — the regimes
ruling Cuba, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and more all sit on it. And so, the U.S. government recently withdrew.
But the sentiments expressed in the new report are not new. Indeed,
the report celebrates attacks by anti-Trump activist and former UN “High
Commissioner for Human Rights” Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, a prince for an
Islamic dictatorship, against a number of popular elected leaders. The
report says Hussein, who resigned in disgrace over scandalous persecution of whistleblowers and protecting child-raping UN officials,
“rightly” took a “bold stand” by “publicly denouncing” them. Among the
victims of Hussein's vitriol: Norbert Hofer (Austria), Miloš Zeman
(Czech Republic), Marine Le Pen (France), Orbán (Hungary), Geert Wilders
(Netherlands), Robert Fico (Slovakia), Nigel Farage (United Kingdom),
and Trump. Italy and its new anti-establishment alliance in power are
singled out repeatedly in the new report.
Hussein compared Trump's “tactics” to ISIS and called the president “dangerous,” suggesting Trump could be prosecuted for his comments exposing the “fake news” media.
The new UN report, meanwhile, describes Trump's rhetoric as
“xenophobic,” “misogynistic,” and more. “In the United States, President
Donald Trump’s xenophobic nationalist populist rhetoric has
consistently stigmatized and vilified migrants, refugees and racial and
ethnic minorities,” the UN report claims without citing examples,
suggesting that Trumpism is a violation of the UN's “international law.”
Why the same taxpayers who elected those leaders should be forced to
finance the UN's increasingly unhinged attacks on their own elected
leaders was not made clear. But the fact that the UN believes Trumpism
and similar viewpoints should be made illegal was perfectly clear.
Populism is defined in the report as concern over corrupt, conspiring
“elites” working against the people. “Generally speaking, the ideology
of populism focuses on societal cleavage between unaccountable or
corrupt elites and the people, a general populace viewed as exploited or
neglected by those power-holding elites,” said the UN report, without
acknowledging that such a situation exists — provably so — not just in
America but worldwide. “Nationalist populism often successfully advances
heteronormative, patriarchal visions of the nation, and a version of
traditional values.” Populists also do not approve of the murder of
unborn children, euphemistically referred to in the report as
“reproductive and sexual rights.”
In other words, anyone concerned about global elites building a
totalitarian “New World Order” while undermining morality is a populist,
and therefore an evil racist and potentially even genocidal. At least
that is what the UN and its fringe “special rapporteur” want people to
believe. And because racism, intolerance, and discrimination are
supposedly banned by what the UN calls “international law,” the UN and
many of its member governments and dictatorships feel not just entitled
to wage war against “populists” and “nationalists” — but obligated to.
Basically, the UN and the shady characters that congregate around its
disgraced “Human Rights” apparatus — communists, socialists, Islamists,
radical LGBT activists, dictators, abortion advocates, and others — seem
to have realized that their narrative is coming apart at the seams.
The Achiume report goes on to argue that despite some tyranny,
“left-wing” populism is really no big deal, because it is “oriented
toward internationalism” and groups people into “social classes” rather
than viewing them as distinct nations, peoples, religions, and so on.
Meanwhile, “right-wing” varieties of populism such as those emerging in
Europe and the United States support nationhood rather than globalism,
and therefore must be combated by the UN. In particular, the report and
its author claim “multiculturalism” is under threat from right-wing
nationalist populists and that this multiculturalism must be expanded
and preserved über alles. Basically, only National Socialists
(Nazis) and racists do not love globalism, multiculturalism, and open
borders, the tax-funded report argues, absurdly. And they are very
dangerous, supposedly.
Yet, as an example of the horror unleashed when these “nationalist
populists” rise to power, she pointed to demands for photo ID to vote.
Seriously. Another example of the terrors waiting to befall humanity if
“nationalist populists” take power is the “Stop Soros” Act in Hungary,
aimed at reining in the subversion and mass illegal migration being
funded by the extremist U.S.-based billionaire. Finally, the report
warns that “nationalist populists” often oppose feminism and “gender
mainstreaming.” A “far-right” presidential candidate in Austria even had
the nerve to say that “the legal definition of marriage presumed the
intention to produce and raise children.” And some female politicians in
America argued that the slaughter of unborn children should be
outlawed! Oh, the horror!
Part of the reason that resistance has escalated to the UN-backed New
World Order agenda is that “new forms of media,” particularly online,
have helped rouse the public, the report warns. And so, governments must
actively work to stop it. “States,” the report says, meaning
governments, have a “legal obligation to combat the structural effects
of nationalist populism.” Indeed, they must go even further. According
to the report, “international law” supposedly “requires” governments to
combat not just actual discrimination, but even “de facto or
unintentional racial discrimination.” And because everything the UN does
not like is defined as racial discrimination or intolerance, including
support for “populism” or “nationalism,” governments all over the world
are required to wage war on everything and everyone the UN hates. See
how that works?
Governments must also ban “hate speech” or other forms of expression
that might “incite” to “discrimination” or “intolerance” against
immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, individuals confused about their
gender, and so on. Indeed, the UN report is packed with demands for
banning all sorts of speech — even indirect or symbolic speech that
might be in code — that the UN claims is banned under “international
law.” Of course, the First Amendment specifically prohibits any
government prohibitions on speech. And yet, even though American
taxpayers are by far the largest financiers of the dictators club, the
UN demands their Constitution and their God-given rights be trampled.
Ironically, the whole concept of "hate speech" was first promoted by the
mass-murdering regime in the Soviet Union to ban speech it hated.
Now the UN has taken up the cry. “Action is required by more states
to implement anti-hate speech laws and ensure equality and
non-discrimination including online, in accordance with international
human rights law,” claimed Achiume, the fringe left-wing UN rapporteur
behind the report, in a press release.
“Criminal and civil penalties alone will not put an end to racial and
xenophobic intolerance. A state’s first step must be explicit
recognition that the proliferation of nationalist populist mobilizations
and Neo-Nazi groups threaten racial equality.” Technology companies
must do more to censor and silence Christians, conservatives, and others
who oppose the UN agenda, she suggested, calling for a ban on
“extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial” news and material as well.
And “education” to combat “nationalist populism” is also needed, the
surreal report concluded.
Meanwhile, a separate UN bureaucrat last week accused British
lawmakers of racism for ridiculing the UN’s ongoing “investigation” into
“poverty” in the United Kingdom. “Unfortunately several recent visits
to the U.K. by UN Special Rapporteurs have been marred by misleading,
hostile and occasionally racist reportage,” whined the UN in a
statement. “At times this reporting appears to have been encouraged by
MPs and on occasion government ministers.” The UN also smeared political
leaders including Prime Minister Theresa May for allegedly having
“undermined” their “work.” Of course, their work deserves to be ridiculed — it is practically a parody of itself! But saying that is now potentially illegal hate speech in UN world.
The same totalitarian ideologists and servants of mass-murdering
dictators working to ban criticism of their evil have made great
progress installing their minions up and down the “multilateral” system.
In the European Union, the
EU pseudo-Parliament just voted for a resolution demanding that
criticism of Islam or the LGBT agenda be punished all over Europe. Meanwhile, the primary UN agency that globalists are grooming to regulate and censor the Internet, known as the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), just re-elected
a Communist Chinese agent named Houlin Zhao for the top job. This is
the same tyrant who, after his first election, claimed censorship was in
the eye of the beholder.
The fact that the UN and the forces behind it have become so
desperate that they are willing to demand full-blown censorship and
persecution of those who disagree with their agenda is telling. It means
that globalists, communists, Islamists, and others working through the
UN system to wage war on Western Christian civilization realize they are
losing the war for hearts and minds. Even a rigged marketplace of ideas
featuring shadow bans and rigged Google algorithms is not enough.
Instead, the totalitarians demand that thought criminals who believe in
life, liberty, nation-states, the Bible, and more be terrorized,
prosecuted, and silenced by the state. That means the good guys are
winning. But the battle will be raging for a long time to come — and the
outcome is by no means certain. Related articles: Islamic UN “Human Rights” Boss Seeks “Proactive” Web Censorship UN Plots War on Free Speech to Stop “Extremism” Online UN: Trump Could Be Prosecuted for “Incitement” Against Media After Charlottesville, UN Demands U.S. Quash First Amendment UN Seeks to Criminalize Free Speech, Citing “Human Rights” United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S. UN “Human Rights” Council Now Officially Controlled by Dictators UN and Obama Launch Global War on “Ideologies” Chinese Communist to Lead UN Agency Seeking to Control Internet EU Resolution Demands Critics of LGBT and Islam Be Prosecuted New Obama Terror Czar Will Target Conservatives, Christians Big Tech and Big Government Censoring the Internet. Who's Next? UN “Investigating” Poverty ... in America Chinese Communist to Lead UN Agency Seeking to Control Internet ____________________________________________________
The Nationalist Populist Right is Unstoppable - and the Left Still Doesn’t Get It!!!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
LifeNews Alabama voters proved once again that when people get a chance to go
to the polls they generally vote for unborn children. And they did just
that tonight by approving an amendment saying unborn babies have a right
to life. The proposed constitutional amendment asked voters to “affirm that it
is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the
sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, most
importantly the right to life in all manners and measures appropriate
and lawful.” The amendment also would guarantee that “the constitution
of this state does not protect the right to abortion or require the
funding of abortion.” Voters said yes by a 60-40 margin.
The vote came despite the Planned Parenthood abortion business spending $1.5 million to defeat it. Yellowhammer News reports the out-of-state, dark money came from the
abortion giant Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. These
groups spent about $1.5 million to attack Amendment 2, which would
affirm unborn babies’ right to life in the Alabama constitution,
according to the report. To continue reading, click here
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In reality, there’s no such thing as being “transgender.” No one in
the history of mankind has ever “trans” their gender. This is, of
course, because gender is the same as sex and sex is molecular; it can’t
be changed by chopping off one thing or adding another. However, there
are some who pretend as though their gender is something it’s not and it
is commonly known as “transgenderism,” an unscientific term if ever
there was one. Mark Wingfield, the associate pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church, recently claimed in an Op-Ed in Baptist News Global that it’s not a sin to lie about your gender.
Wingfield has served Wilshire Baptist Church as associate pastor
since 2004 and from1998 to 2003, he served as managing editor of the
Baptist Standard, the newspaper for Texas Baptists. He also wrote for
the Western Recorder, a newspaper of Kentucky Baptists. Wingfield has
also served as associate director of news and information for the
Southern Baptist Home Mission Board and director of news and information
for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He’s a product of the
Southern Baptist Convention, through and through. Wingfield wrote in Baptist News Global, a publication for which he’s a columnist, “Even
among Christians who appear kind or progressive, too often the
existence of someone who identifies as transgender gets chalked up to
‘sin.’ No doubt that’s the root reason so many Christians happily pile
on against transgender persons and their family members about bathroomsand schools
because in their heart of hearts, they don’t understand transgender
identity and simply default to thinking it is a sinful lifestyle choice.”
Of course, Wingfield’s claim is highly reductionist. Right-thinking
Christians don’t argue that sin is a “choice” definitionally. Because of
the doctrine of Original Sin (which anyone with more than an ounce of
Christian theological training embraces), sin is not merely a matter of what we do, but who we are. We are not sinners because we sin, but through Biblical lenses, we sin because we are sinners. He continues:
Even among Christians who appear kind or progressive, too
often the existence of someone who identifies as transgender gets
chalked up to ‘sin.’
Transgenderism is a sin because God gets to make and identify people as either male or female (Genesis 5:2),
not the individual. Transgenderism is also a sin because it’s a
violation of the 9th Commandment, a lie. Lying about one’s gender is as sinful as lying about anything else. On top of that, transgenderism is usually closely associated with
other kinds of more overt sexual perversions (which are also sins by
Biblical definition). Wingfield claims, however, that sin is only sin if there’s a volitional choice (which is flawed theology). He then assumes that lying about one’s gender somehow isn’t a choice.
I think we all can agree that a “sin” is something we do
that we shouldn’t do, something we have a choice about. If I eat an
entire half-gallon of ice cream, I am likely guilty of the sin of
gluttony.* I didn’t have to eat the ice cream. If I fixate on why other
people are more athletic and agile than me in my mid-life body, I
probably am guilty of the sin of envy. There is a way for me to redirect
my thoughts to avoid envy.
[Editor’s Note: “Over-eating” is not the sin of gluttony. Gluttony is selfish eating when others go hungry or snobby eating, which could bring insult to others. God invented feasting, after all]
The same is not true of transgender identity.
Emphatically and conclusively, this is not a choice. It is who a person
is. Did you choose to have red hair? Did you choose to be tall or short?
Did you choose to have the genetic markers you have? Of course not.
Transgender persons are simply acknowledging that the gender identity
assigned to them at birth because of physical anatomy does not match the
brain, biochemical and genetic gender identity they know inside.
Notice the cognitive dissonance of Wingfield’s argument. He asks,
“Did you choose to have red hair? Your height? Your genetic markers?”
What do all of these things have in common? Your hair color, height, and
genetic markers are like your penis or vagina; they are given by God.
Wingfield says flippantly, as though it were somehow a matter of
science, that their “physical anatomy does not match the brain,”
whatever that means.
Where are all the red-haired people who claim that it doesn’t match
their brain and they are, in fact, blonde? Where are all the tall people
who claim that doesn’t match their brain and they are, in fact, short?
Of course, those people might be called mentally ill. And if they
actually demanded to be identified by the wrong hair color or height,
they would be guilty of lying and encouraging others to lie.
I could quote chapter and verse for study after study,
and that would not change the minds of some people who are determined to
label as sinful anything they do not understand, usually because “the
Bible says so.” In these cases, I ask people to tell me where in the
Bible being transgender is condemned as sinful. The only answer usually
offered is Deuteronomy 22:5,
which says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man
put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to
the Lord your God.”
Here’s the problem with even a literal reading of that passage:
Transgender persons will tell you they are not “men” putting on
“women’s” clothing or “women” putting on “men’s” clothing.
We understand transgenderism, of course. God has given them over to a
debased and depraved mind, and men think they’re women and women think
they’re men. Instead of repenting of this depraved insanity, they insist
people reinforce their delusions. Those who don’t love them do reinforce their delusions. We get it.
Of course, Wingfield implies there’s a non-literal reading of Deuteronomy 22:5
(I’d be curious to hear what a metaphorical reading would entail),
before claiming matter-of-factly that they’re not a man putting on a
woman’s clothing because they’re actually a woman on the inside. Of course, they’re a man on the inside also
in every scientific way that can be measured. They’re only a woman
subjectively, in unquantified ways, and only presuming the existence of
soul or spirit.
The problem with arguing that transgenderism exists at all is that it
requires a belief in the supernatural and metaphysical. Scientifically
and from a naturalist worldview, it is absolutely impossible to claim
that someone is a different gender “on the inside” from “on the
outside.” That argument requires a belief in the soul or spirit, that
someone is metaphysically different from who they are physically. But once they acknowledge the metaphysic and supernatural, we’re on to the realm of God. And God says he
makes you male or female. So whether from a naturalist or
supernaturalist perspective, transgenderism ranks up there as one of the
dumbest ideas ever thought of, like New Coke or spray-on hair for bald
men.
Occasionally, people will point to Genesis 1:27
as a condemnation of transgender identity: “male and female he created
them.” Most transgender persons will tell you they believe God has, in
fact, created them as either male or female; the problem is how they
have been labeled by others who are not God.
God did not “label them” by placing a subtle whisper in their heart
about what gender they are. He labeled them when he slapped their
genitalia on.
Wingfield’s post is an adventure in Scripture-twisting, even going so
far as to argue that Genesis demonstrates someone can be “gender fluid”
because God made “night and day” and “land and sea,” and therefore one
person can be two things. Seriously. That’s his argument. You can read it here.
Writer
Jim Fletcher is reporting from the Catalyst Dallas conference that a
Centering Prayer exercise was recently led by mystic and contemplative
spiritualist Phileena Heuertz at Catalyst conference, which is a
Christian conference that moves from city to city. The current Catalyst
is being held April 30-May 2, 2014 in Dallas, TX. Heuertz, who is the
author of Pilgrimage of the Soul,
was listed as a "lab speaker," which means that her session was
probably a breakout session in which not all of the conference attendees
were participants. Some of the other Catalyst Dallas speakers includeTullian Tchividjian, Dave Ramsey, Louie Giglio, Mark Batterson, Jen Hatmaker, Craig Groeschel, and Francis Chan.
(HT: Jules LaPierre, Jim Fletcher)
Phileena Heuertz
Some background information on Phileena Heuertz: Heuertz and her husband teach contemplative mysticism at their websitegravity, as well as other mystical/pagan practices:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Watching Queer as Folk. Kissing Oscar Wilde’s grave. Earrings only in the right ear. A grown man at a Madonna concert.
These things all have one thing in common. They’re all slightly less gay than Jonathan Merritt, the grown son of megachurch pastor, James Merritt and a journalist who has become a favorite of the Evangelical Intelligentsia. Merritt was outed as having “been with” a dude back in 2012 before he slinked back into the closet with some help from Ed Stetzer and others who frantically scurried to cover up his trail of gayness.
Today, Merritt still officially holds to the position that
homosexuality is – at least on some level – God’s “imperfect design”
while promoting and supporting the Revoice-style leftists who promote
“gay Christianity.” Regardless of whatever concession Merritt has had to
make on sodomy to remain profitable (and employed) in Christian
journalism, it’s fair to say that Jonathan Merritt is no more straight
than a two-dollar bill. This hasn’t prevented America’s Evangelical Intelligentsia, and especially the newly woke “Reformed” Social Justice Warriors, from treating him like a gay bestie in high school.
Demonstrating that the evangelical establishment’s promotion of
Jonathan Merritt couldn’t be unwisely misappropriated any further,
yesterday Merritt promoted the New Age and mystic practice of contemplative prayer (left).
Phileena Heuertz is a yoga instructor and mystic whose main career is
as a “retreat guide” (picture teaching upper-class housewives over a
weekend on how to get in touch with their feelings and presume their
inner-voice belongs to God while assuming the Lotus Position). She has
also spoken at leftist and progressive events like Sojourner’s Summit
and Q Ideas. In other words, she’s exactly the type of person you would
assume a gay man would be good friends with.
Endorsing Heuertz’ books
include a bevy of lady pastors and Episcopal priests. Her general
schtick is the combining of Eastern Mysticism with a general
Christian-flavored theism. That you could find Merritt somewhere in yoga
pants doing the Downward Dog is not implausible. Combining such
poppycock with evangelical Christianity, however, is distasteful.
In the last 24 hours, Merritt has taken to Twitter to attack Judge Kavanaugh,
promote gun control, and push Social Justice. And yet, Merritt remains
the single greatest ally in the press of the ‘woke’ faux-Reformed
intelligentsia who have taken over the Presbyterian Church of America
and the Southern Baptist Convention
