The media doesn’t believe in conversion. A person who changes his mind is labeled a flip-flopper. Tapes of statements made years earlier are replayed ad infinitum.
Christians, on the other hand, rejoice when a person admits he was wrong, is embarrassed by and regrets previous behavior, has apologized, and promises to change.
Because Donald Trump had promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice who would follow the example of the late great Justice Scalia and Clinton has promised to nominate pro-Roe Justices, I have prayed for Trump, but I was aware of his serious flaws. I knew from his own words that he didn’t understand the Christian concept of repentance. The revelation of his gutter talk has forced him to apologize. As Christians, we can accept his apology and promise of amendment.
Trump has said that the experience of the last year has made him a changed man. In moving from promoting his own interests and his own brand, to fighting to make America great again, he has been exposed to the fears, concerns, and suffering of ordinary citizens.
As the firestorm over Trump’s words, swept over the country, I saw that I have been praying for the wrong thing. I was praying that my country would be spared the consequence of its sins, when I should be praying for the souls of our politicians and true conversion.
Those who were offended by Hillary Clinton’s speech calling Trump supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” should consider the similarity between her choice of words and the statement of Martin Castro, Chairman of the US Commission of Civil Rights in support of the report “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling non-discrimination principles with civil rights.” Castro summed up the report as follows:
“The phrases “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”
The report is a frontal attack on freedom of religion.
Is this what Hillary has in mind for Christians? She needs to be challenged to repudiate the anti-Christian agenda of the report and the Obama administration.
For example, does Hillary support the USCCR recommendation that Christian groups be denied recognition at public universities if they require their members or leaders to be Christians?
Does she believe that anti-discrimination rules should trump religious liberty?
Does she believe that freedom of religion applies only to belief and not to conduct?
Does she believe that pro-family, pro-life Christians are irredeemable, intolerant, bigots?
Hillary Clinton “…you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
Chairman Martin R. Castro
“Religious liberty was never intended to give one religion dominion over other religions, or a veto power over the civil rights and civil liberties of others. However, today, as in the past, religion is being used as both a weapon and a shield by those seeking to deny others equality. In our nation’s past religion has been used to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow laws. We now see “religious liberty” arguments sneaking their way back into our political and constitutional discourse (just like the concept of “state rights”) in an effort to undermine the rights of some Americans. This generation of Americans must stand up and speak out to ensure that religion never again be twisted to deny others the full promise of America.”
Commissioners Achtenberg, Castro, Kladney, Narasaki, and Yaki Rebuttal
A new wave of laws is being proposed to limit the freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
These laws and proposals represent an orchestrated, nationwide effort by extremists to promote bigotry, cloaked in the mantle of “religious freedom.” The current spate of anti-LGBT laws is not the result of a spontaneous, populist revolt. It is a carefully-planned strategy, being undertaken to punish LGBT people for having the temerity to pursue equality and prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although it isn’t a popular subject these days, there is going to be a judgment. Each individual at the moment of death will come before the just judge of all. While one could ask for justice, that would be a highly risky choice, since all have sinned. Better to ask for mercy.
The scriptures both old and new testaments teach us that nations and kingdoms will also face judgement. Since these do not have immortal sous, they will be judged in time. For all our problems, our country has been blessed as no other in history, but we have in many ways shown ourselves unworthy of these blessings. The blood of the unborn slaughtered in the womb cries out to heaven for justice. Read more…
In 1990 I began my research into the gender ideology. At first most people, including friends and associates, really didn’t see the problem. It all seemed so outlandish. The gender ideologues promoted the idea that all the differences –except the obvious physical ones — were artificial social constructions and could and should be eliminated so that men and women would participate in every activity in society in statistically equal numbers. The biological reality of male and female should have no social recognition. Who could take it seriously? Didn’t everyone know men and women were naturally different? Read more…
I am a prolife voter. For me that is the single issue that informs my vote. If the election is between someone who supports abortion and someone who doesn’t, there is no question –regardless of party.
It has happened that my choice has been between two pro-abortion candidates. In that case I voted Republican, because the pro-abortion Republican belonged to a prolife party and would cast his vote for a pro-life Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader. In this case my vote was ultimately pro-life.
In the case of Trump v. Clinton, there is a clear choice. She is the most pro-abortion candidate imaginable. She will appoint justices and judges who will push her anti-life agenda long after she has left office. Not only that, she will appoint pro-abortion department heads and lower level officials, as well as a pro-abortion attorney general. How many pro-life cabinet level officials were appointed by her husband or Obama? I don’t know of one.
Clinton believes that to secure the triumph of her pro-abortion ideology, those who oppose it must change their religion. Under her rule we can expect persecution.
We can’t sit this one out. Not voting is voting for Clinton.
For me, there is only one choice. I believe that one day we will all stand before the judgement and there beside the great judge will be the souls of all the unborn killed by abortion. Party, politics, economics, none of this will matter. I want to be able to say I did not forget them. Therefore, I must vote for the unborn and trust God to protect our country.
Why does it matter that the core ideology of Black Lives Matter, pro-abortion feminists, and sexual revolutionaries is NeoMarxism?
I listen to the talking heads struggle to make sense of the feminists who don’t care about women’s suffering, the BLM activists who don’t care about the lives of black men, women, and children murdered in urban ghettos, the gay activists who sabotage HIV/STD prevention programs and hide the continuing epidemic, and supposed Liberals who don’t care about freedom of religion and speech.
I felt the same frustration in the 1980’s when I was debating prochoicers. Two friends enlightened me, “They are Marxist.” They told me to read Engels The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, and David Horowitz’s Destructive Generation. I did and it all made sense.
The goal of NeoMarxists is class struggle leading to revolution, and all power to the oppressed. They aren’t interested in solving problems or alleviating real suffering. They oppose anything that dampens the anger of the oppressed classes.
NeoMarxists use violence, resort to name-calling, deny human rights, and don’t care how many people die. In this, they are more like the terrorists of ISIS than the traditional Liberals who have foolishly made common cause with them.
Until we understand their true objectives, and call them out, the NeoMarxists among us will continue to divide and destroy
The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet has dedicated more than a dozen articles in its June 17 issue to affirming trangenderism as “diversity and not pathology”. This is not the first time The Lancet has adopted a controversial cause and been proven wrong. In this instance, The Lancet accepted, without any supporting evidence, the claim that a transition from one sex to the other sex with or without surgical alteration is an appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria is the new name for Gender Identity Disorder. Dysphoria is a fancy word for unhappiness. The gender dysphoric are unhappy ecause they don’t feel comfortable as the sex they were born. They envy the other sex and want to be (or may believe contrary to the obvious evidence that they are) the other sex. They are willing to go to extremes to achieve what they covet – acceptance as the other sex. Read more…