Jay Sekulow, THIS Is How You Deal With Traitors….

I have posted this to Mr. Sekulow's Facebook walls several times asking him to respond.

To-date, my request for a response has gone unanswered.

Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice, has been running a campaign to take away the US citizenship of any citizen who leaves the country to fight on behalf of ISIS or any other terrorist organization. 

The stated mission of the ACLJ is to defend the Constitution.

With that in mind, the Constitution, Article 3 Section 3, says any person who fights on behalf of America's enemies is guilty of treason, and must be tried and sentenced to the punishment determined by Congress.

The WWII example of George Dasch shows us how this should be done.

Dasch was a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, who left the US with a group of other german americans to receive training from the Nazis and return to commit acts of terrorism and sabotage. He and his group were captured within days of re-entering the US, tried, and sentenced to death. Dasch and one other conspirator had their sentences commuted to prison because they cooperated with federal agents, after which they were deported to Germany and never allowed to return; the remainder of his team were executed by electric chair - just SEVEN WEEKS after returning to the US.

THAT, Mr. Sekulow, is how you deal with traitors.

I still await your response.

We'll Skip The Wash And Head Directly To The Spin Cycle….

We now know, based on past events involving muslims,  how the White House will spin the San Bernardino shooting, even before the official statement is released: workplace violence.

From the statement issued by the White House while the search for the San Bernardino shooters was still in full-swing, it was apparent that the president was expecting the shooters to be his worst nightmare and rallying point - white, disaffected, gun-loving, conservative males. He was getting ready to threaten the nation again with some sort of executive action to put gun control into place. 

But hold on, it turns out that the shooters WEREN'T white, disaffected conservatives, they were muslims. 

It is official - the shooters are identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and a woman, Tashfeen Malik, 27. Farook, according to the reports, worked at the disability center and angrily left the facility's holiday party, coming back with Malik. It is evident from the execution and arming of the attack that he had been planning this for some time. 

His brother-in-law made a televised statement this morning that he had no idea why Farook attacked the center - and he made his statement from a CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization with known ties to the muslim brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding trial a few years ago) facility, with the CAIR backdrop.  Apparently that group is trying to distance itself from the attack.

During last night's and this morning's broadcasts regarding the attack, reporters are asking the question: hours had passed since the shooting, so why were the shooters only TWO MILES from the scene of the attack? The obvious answer is that they intended to die as martyrs.

I am certain that the administration and liberals everywhere will find some way to pin the blame for this attack on America.

Active Shooters In San Bernardino - And The President Wastes No Time Politicizing The Event….

Active shooter incident in California, and the White House wastes no time politicizing the event. Here is the statement from the WH, broken down with my observations:

"Well, we don't know that much yet." 

Keep that in mind.

"It's still an active situation. FBI is on the ground offering assistance to local officials as they need it. It does appear that there are going to be some casualties. And you know, obviously our hearts go out to the victims and the families."

"The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there's some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen as frequently, common sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks and you know, for those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no fly list where people can't get on planes but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the united states and buy a firearm and there's nothing that we can do to stop them."

1, We know NOTHING about these people. Who are they? From where did they come? Are they sadists with a beef against the developmentally disabled? Are they terrorists? They attacked a facility that serves the developmentally disabled.

2, We know NOTHING about how they obtained their weapons. Were they purchased locally, in another state, stolen, smuggled in? Since we know nothing about them, how can the president presume that changing our law is going to have ANY impact? A criminal who desires weapons will find illegal ways to obtain them, and no law is going to change that.

3, He mentions terrorism, implicitly declaring this to be a terrorist attack, yet he continues to push for unvetted people to be allowed into the country, while treating citizens with Constitutional rights as closet criminals.

4, The list to which he refers, the "no fly" or "terrorist watch list", is unConstitutional. It contains more than ONE MILLION names. Most of those people have been added to it in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER, merely on someone's suspicion, denying them their Constitutional RIGHT to due process. Since these people have been charged with nothing, had no opportunity to confront their accuser in open court as demanded by the Constitution, have been convicted of no crime, there is no legal basis to deny them their Second Amendment RIGHT to purchase a firearm.

"That's a law that needs to be changed, and so you know, my hope is that we're able to contain this particular shooting and, and we don't yet know what the motives of the shooters are, but what we do know is, is that there are steps we can take to make Americans safer and that we should come together in a bipartisan basis at every level of government to make these rare as opposed to normal."

Again, we have already established that we know nothing about these people, so again, the president cannot presume that using the "terrorist watch list" will stop anything. If anything needs to be changed, it is that the "terrorist watch list" needs to be eliminated. If someone truly poses a threat, then investigate them, charge them, convict them, and deal with them AS DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION. As has already been well-established, a criminal who wants to obtain weapons will do so regardless of inclusion on some government list.

"We should never think that this is something that just happens in the ordinary course of events, because it doesn't happen with the same frequency in other countries."

This statement has already been thoroughly de-bunked. There are far more countries, particularly muslim countries, where such mass shootings are DAILY OCCURRENCES. Of course, that doesn't fit with the agenda.

Pray for the families effected by this tragedy. Pray for law enforcement as they work to round these animals up.

And stop politicizing tragedies. These are people - not political pawns or statements.

The "Terrorist Watch List" and Firearms Purchases….

It has become quite hip to call for denying people whose names appear on the federal terrorist watch list  their right to purchase firearms.  If the list had any validity, was based on anything other than supposition and conjecture, that demand would be reasonable.

But it's not.

There are currently over one million names on the terrorist watch list.  

That's right, one million.  

One million people whose names have been added because of SUSPECTED ties to terrorism.  Not because they have actually been charged or convicted of a crime, but because someone thinks they might be suspicious. 

And now people are screaming for these people to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Here's the problem: we have this Constitutional thing called "due process." "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Fifth Amendment, US Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment clarifies what this means:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no due process associated with the terrorist watch list.  One can be added to it for almost any reason without ever having been convicted, or even charged with, a crime of any sort. 

Prohibiting a person from purchasing a firearm who has never been charged or convicted of a crime but has been added to some secret list anyway is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and equates to depriving them of their Constitutional rights. 

If someone is suspicious enough to be added to some secret list of possible terrorists, then do what the Constitution requires - charge them, prosecute them, PROVE THEIR GUILT IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, and punish them.

Permit Recreational Fires on Private Property in Grand Rapids, MI

I have begun a petition to amend the ordinances of the City of Grand Rapids, MI, to permit recreational fires on private property.

The City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, prohibits ALL “open burning”, including fires contained in outdoor portable fire pits and chimeneas, and other “recreational fires”, which would include those contained in permanent fire pits.  This tramples private property rights, and infringes on our right to fully enjoy our private property.  The following is posted on the Grand Rapids Fire Department web page:

Public Information Regarding Open BurningThe Ordinance Itself - City Code - Title IX - Police Regulations - Chapter 151, Article 4, Section 9.34

(7) Open Burning. Open burning shall be prohibited.

(a)  The following exemptions shall be allowed provided they do not violate any other Sections of this Chapter. 

    (i)  The burning of wood, charcoal, coke or other accepted fuels for the preparing of food in an approved container or utensil while being used in a safe and sanitary manner... 

General Guidelines 

Cooking:

For the purpose of this ordinance, the mere presence of nearby food DOES NOT qualify as an exemption. For the food preparation to be considered, a number of factors need to be present including, but not limited to:

• The device being used for the fire is designed for the cooking of food, as its primary purpose. In addition, the fire officer in charge shall approve the device and its location, from a safety perspective. 

• The fire will be small in nature, and would depend upon the heat from the embers for cooking, rather than from flame contact. 

• When the food preparation was completed, the fire would be extinguished. 

• The gathering of food and support goods after the arrival of the fire department will exclude consideration as a cooking fire. 

• Fires on or in the ground will not be considered.

 As a policy, the Grand Rapids Fire Department will NOT participate in efforts to orchestrate an exemption. Some examples of Open Burning that are NOT allowed in the City of Grand Rapids are: 1. Outdoor Portable Fire Pits 2. Chimeneas 3. Recreational Fires Enforcement:Enforcement of this ordinance is the responsibility of the Grand Rapids Police Department. It is the policy of the Fire Department to educate residents prior to pursuing relief from an enforcement mode. Should the Fire Department respond to a report of an unauthorized burning, the officer in charge may choose to address the situation without activating the enforcement arm of the process. He/she may ask the occupant responsible for the fire to simply extinguish it, with or without the assistance of the Fire Company on scene. If the occupant agrees, the matter is considered closed. If the occupant refuses, Grand Rapids Police shall be notified. Should the Fire Department encounter repeat violations of the ordinance, the fire officer is required to notify the Police Department. August 17, 2009

Michigan, in general, and the Grand Rapids area in particular, has traditionally enjoyed the warmth of outdoor fires as a recreational past time and a pleasant way to spend time with family and friends, in addition to fire’s more utilitarian role in the preparation of food.  While concerns regarding fire safety are prudent, the Grand Rapids City Ordinance has gone too far in proscribing what kind of fires may occur on private property, specifying that only those fires used for food preparation are acceptable, and even then must meet, according to the letter of the ordinance, with the approval of the fire officer regarding the kind of device used for food preparation and the specific location of said device.  Strictly speaking, according to the letter of the ordinance, before placing an outdoor, commercially produced grill on one’s property, “... the fire officer in charge shall approve the device and its location.…”  A strict interpretation of the ordinance, then, would require city residents to obtain approval from the fire officer before placing a new grill, purchased at any of a number of area stores, in one’s own yard to insure that both the type and location of the grill meets with the approval of the city.

We whose signatures appear below do hereby petition the City of Grand Rapids, County of Kent, State of Michigan, to amend the Grand Rapids City Code, Title IX, Chapter 151, Article 4, Section 9.34 to allow recreational fires on private property when contained in:

1. Outdoor Portable Fire Pits
2. Chimeneas
3. Permanent Fire Pits,

and to rescind the requirement that outdoor, open fires and the devices used to contain them may only be used for purposes of preparing food and then only with the approval of the city fire officer.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/permit-recreational-fires-on-private-property-in-grand-rapids-mi.html

When Something Is Truly Sacred….

A Tale Of Two Exemptions….

An immigrant becoming a US citizen can now exempt him/herself from the obligation to serve in the US military/defend the US contained in the oath of citizenship:

"•May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
•Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
•May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility, (http://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-clarifies-eligibility-requirements-modifications-oath-allegiance)"

To get a religious exemption from Obamacare, on the other hand:

"How to claim an exemption for members of a religious sect opposed to accepting insurance benefits

If you’re a member of an approved religious sect or division opposed to accepting private or public insurance benefits, you qualify for a health coverage exemption.

This means you don’t have to pay the fee for any month you were a member of an approved religious sect or division.

What you need to know about this exemption

To claim this exemption you must be a member of a religious sect or division that:

Is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits, including Social Security and Medicare

Has been in existence since December 31, 1950

You’ll need to fill out a paper exemption application and mail it in to the Marketplace.

If you get this exemption, you won’t have to reapply for an exemption unless you turn 21 or leave your religious sect.

If you have one, send a copy of an approved IRS Form 4029 (“Application for Exemption from Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits”) with required signatures.

You can use one application to claim this exemption for anyone you’ll list on your same federal income tax return who qualifies.

Do this first

Download the religious sect exemption application (PDF) and exemption application instructions (PDF).

Ways to claim this exemption

Read the application and instructions for the exemption for members of recognized religious sects.

Be sure to include on your application everybody who’s on your tax return, even if they don’t need this exemption. If necessary, make copies of Step 2 (page 4) for each person. You need to list everyone who’ll be on your tax return so the IRS can match your information.

Complete, sign, and mail the application to the address shown on the form. When you sign the application, you agree that you’re signing under penalty of perjury. This means you’ve answered all questions correctly to the best of your knowledge and understand that you could face criminal penalties if you provide information that’s untrue.

You should get a written response from the Marketplace within 2 to 4 weeks. If your exemption is granted, the notice will include an Exemption Certificate Number (ECN) for each household member.

You’ll need the ECNs to claim the exemption on your 2015 tax return. Details will be available later in 2015. Keep the written response and ECNs in a safe place so you can find them when it’s time to file your 2015 taxes.

If you already have an ECN for membership in a religious sect opposed to insurance 

If you already have an Exemption Certificate Number from 2014 for membership in a religious sect, you can use the same ECN to complete Form 8965 of your 2015 federal tax return. You’ll need to provide that ECN on your Form 8965 every year when you file your federal taxes as long as your membership status doesn’t change.

You can also claim this exemption on your Form 8965 without an ECN. If you claim it that way, you’ll also need to claim it each year.

If you received an ECN from the Marketplace before you turned 21, you’ll need to complete a new exemption application with the Marketplace to get a new ECN when you turn 21.

If your exemption application isn’t approved

You must qualify for another exemption or pay the fee for the months of 2015 you aren’t covered. Learn more about the fee.

You can appeal the decision to deny your exemption. Learn how to appeal a Marketplace decision. (https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions-tool/#/results/2015/details/religion)"

Anyone else see the problem here? 

September 14, 2015, Day Of Prayer For Law Enforcement….

In the light of increasing attacks on police officers, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has designated September 14, 2015, as a state day of prayer for law enforcement officers.

I suggest that we take this national.

Please set aside some time on this date to pray for our law enforcement officers.

As I make this request, I want to make something very clear: I am painfully aware that there are bad law enforcement officers out there.  They are individuals who SHOULD be held accountable for their crimes.  Sadly, many will not - in THIS lifetime.  But there is coming a day when they, like everyone else, will stand before the judgement seat of Jesus the Christ to give account for their crimes - and HE will not give them a pass (2 Corinthians 5:10).  

In the meantime, attacking police officers - or condoning/excusing those who do - solves nothing.  

In fact, for those who are concerned about the increasing militarization of law enforcement, as am I, it simply reinforces the perceived need to dig in deeper.  More importantly, attacking officers - or condoning/excusing those who do - particularly those who are innocent of any wrongdoing, is an attack on God's appointed servants and, by extension, an attack on God and His created order.

Those officers who faithfully and conscientiously perform their duties every day deserve our prayers and support.  The Bible says they are GOD'S SERVANTS, APPOINTED BY GOD to punish evil (Romans 13:1-5).

Pray for them.

September 11, 2015, A Muslim Celebration…..

Two Democratic mayors, Mayors Virg Bernero and Nathan Triplett of Lansing and East Lansing, will be hosting a "Ramadan" dinner on behalf of the Islamic Society of Greater Lansing.  Ramadan is in quotes because it ended over a month ago.

That's right, they think our day of remembrance for those who were killed by islamic extremists on September 11, 2001, is an appropriate day on which to hold a Ramadan "Unity" dinner.

If like so many of us, you believe this to be a terrible idea, Mayors Bernero and Triplett can be contacted using the following information:

Mayor Virg Bernero

517-483-4141
Lansing.Mayor@lansingmi.gov

Mayor Nathan Triplett

(517) 719-6499

ntriple@cityofeastlansing.com

Religious Exemption For New Citizens….

The Department of US Citizenship and Immigration Service has announced that they are revising the required verbiage of the oath of citizenship, allowing new citizens to exempt themselves from ever serving in the United States military.

Now, in order to receive a religious exemption from Obamacare, one's beliefs must line up EXACTLY with the historic teachings of a recognized denomination/sect; INDIVIDUAL convictions count for nothing.  

Yet a person wishing to become a citizen of the US:

"* May be eligible for modifications [to the oath of citizenship] based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code. 

* IS NOT REQUIRED TO BELONG TO A SPECIFIC CHURCH OR RELIGION, FOLLOW A PARTICULAR THEOLOGY OR BELIEF, OR TO HAVE HAD RELIGIOUS TRAINING IN ORDER TO QUALIFY," (emphasis added).

So a new citizen can exempt himself/herself from ever serving in the US military, but not from Obamacare, based solely on their personal beliefs.

US Citizenship Oath Changes 

Nuclear Pact With Iran Signed 14 July 2015….

History repeating. 

 It isn't just those who IGNORE history who are doomed to repeat it, it is also those who REVISE history who suffer the same end.

1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain meets with Hitler in Munich, ceding Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich, signing a document stating their desire to achieve goals through negotiation, and returning to Britain to proclaim that he had secured "… peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” His efforts to appease Hitler, as we know all to well, did NOT secure the peace for which Chamberlain had sought. Instead, it emboldened Hitler to begin his full-on conquest to occupy Europe. 

 Winston Churchill's response to the agreement is instructive for today: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” 

 Iran has made it clear that it is seeking out war with Israel, the United States, and moderate Arab countries in the region. This agreement, which gives Iran nearly everything it demanded and remains essentially unverifiable (it gives give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access "where necessary when necessary", something that IRAN, which has a track record of denying such access, will determine despite what the agreement might say), in no way dissuades Iran from those goals. In fact, all the while negotiations were ongoing, the Iranian president, the ayatollah, and the chief military military leaders of the country were publicly declaring that an agreement would be unenforceable, as they would never allow inspections to take place. They see it for what it is - a ploy to lift sanctions while giving them time to further develop their weapons. 

 The president says this deal "…. marks one more chapter in our pursuit of a safer, more helpful and more hopeful world." Sound familiar? In point of fact, he was "…. given the choice between war and dishonour. [He] chose dishonour and [he] will have war.” 

 Congress now has 60 days to evaluate and either ratify or reject the agreement. The president has said he will veto any legislation rejecting it; it would require a two-thirds vote of the legislature to override his veto. 

 Hopefully, congress rejects the treaty.

FB Meme: Pastor's "Talk" With Congregation

This meme began floating around recently.

It is wrong.

I feel the need to correct this because there are people in my life who fit into the different categories addressed in this meme. I love you enough to show you what the Bible REALLY says about these issues.

Divorce is not always a sin, and the death penalty under the Old Testament law to which the pastor referred was for adultery, not divorce.

The Old Testament clearly provides for divorce under certain circumstances, and the divorce declaration was to protect the wife from being stoned as an adulteress:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house...," Deuteronomy 24:1.

Clearly, the Old Testament does NOT - contrary to what the preacher supposedly tells his congregation - categorically declare divorce to be a sin.

Jesus clearly taught that divorce is PERMISSIBLE in cases of unrepentant adultery: 

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery," Matthew 5:32

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery," Matthew 19:19.

Divorce for any reason OTHER than adultery, according to Jesus, is sin.

Remarriage after divorce is adultery. Again, Jesus explained this clearly:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery," Matthew 5:32 

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery," Matthew 19:19.

But those are the same verses you used to show that divorce is permissible in the event of unrepentant adultery. Yes, that is right. Jesus acknowledged the fact that Moses permitted divorce for immorality, but He then added a qualification that has been overlooked in the vast majority of evangelical circles. The husband who divorced his wife because of her unrepentant immorality was not causing her to become an adulteress; she already was one by virtue of her own immoral behavior. So the mere act of divorce doesn't automatically make one an adulterer/adulteress. On the other hand, the spouse who divorces for reasons OTHER than adultery MAKES their spouse an adulterer.

How?

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery," Matthew 5:32 

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery," Matthew 19:19.

And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery,'" Mark 10:11-12.

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery," Luke 16:18.

Marrying a divorced person is adultery according to these passages. According to JESUS' teaching, the spouse who divorces for any reason other than adultery causes the divorced spouse to become an adulterer upon their eventual remarriage. The spouse who divorces BECAUSE of adultery does not cause the divorced spouse to become an adulterer, they already are one by virtue of their own behavior.

Paul also teaches this.

"For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man," Romans 7:2-3.

The spouse who remarries while their "ex" lives is an adulterer.

Even 1 Corinthians 7, home of the infamous - and greatly misunderstood - "escape clause," continues this teaching. People tend to focus on verse 15, the supposed escape clause, and completely ignore verses 10-13 and verse 39:

"To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.  If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him… 

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

Long story short, divorce is not sin if it is carried out in response to unrepentant adultery. Remarriage is forbidden in every circumstance EXCEPT after the death of the spouse. And yes, under the Old Testament law, the penalty for adultery was death. God called it a capital crime.

Now on to the other observation contained in this meme.

The pastor supposedly says, "The Bible doesn't say anything about the consequences of a homosexual lifestyle."

This is a LIE.

First, the Bible DOES declare homosexuality to be sin:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...," Leviticus 20:13a

This does not refer, as some would have us believe, to temple prostitutes.  God forbids all sexual activity outside of marriage, and the temple worship of Yahweh contained no sexual elements.  This is exactly what it appears to be - a categorical declaration by God that homosexuality is completely outside of His design for sexual relations. 

Second, contrary to the teaching of the pastor in this meme, the same passage that declares adultery to be a sin punishable by death also declares, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them," Leviticus 20:13. Obviously, the pastor in the meme is guilty of cherry picking God's Word.

Adultery and homosexuality, under the Old Testament law, are EQUALLY punishable by death.

OK, but that is the Old Testament.

So let's see what the New Testament has to say.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them," Romans 1:18-32.

That's pretty clear. Mankind thinks itself wiser than God, thinks itself capable of changing GOD'S constructs - morally, spiritually, and even PHYSICALLY. God says, "Fine, have it your way - but be aware, there are consequences associated with these choices, chief among them, I WILL GIVE YOU UP TO YOUR OWN CHOICES." Homosexuality is but one of the sins listed in this passage, but it is also called out very specifically. Paul goes on to address the issue of homosexuality in two other passages:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God," 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

"... understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted," 1 Timothy 9-11.

So contrary to the teaching of the pastor in the meme, the homosexual lifestyle DOES bring consequences. Under the Old Testament law, it was, as was adultery, punishable by death. Under the New Testament, the consequences for homosexuality, as for adultery, include alienation from God, physical and mental ailments ("... receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error..."), and eternal consequences.

The pastor in the meme ends his talk with the observation, "So, we as a church family have to support equality with a smile on our face.  THAT is the true Christian way."

I want to go on the record by saying that we as the church must show genuine Christian love for ALL sinners.  We are called by our Savior to show them the love of Christ.  And as the church, we have not always done a very good job of communicating that love.  That is absolutely true.

But also understand that true love, while accepting the person, created in the image of God, is not acceptance of what the Bible clearly calls sin.  

The Romans 1 passage ends with this warning - and it contradicts the teaching of the preacher in the meme:

"...Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them," Romans 1:32.

The true calling of the church to such individuals, whether homosexual, adulterer, thief, gossip, murder - you name it, is to love that individual enough to show them the truth of God's Word:

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself," Galatians 1:1-3.

I want to address one other issue that is not OVERTLY covered in this meme, but it is in the background.

These days, in order to remove the stigma from things that have been traditionally looked at as "sin," psychologists/psychiatrists are working working to re-classify everything.  The Bible teaches that we were created as Man and Woman: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness',"  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," Genesis 1:26-27.  Psychology, in order to remove the stigma from homosexuality, says, "No, gender identity/sexual orientation is what you perceive yourself to be.

God created man and woman with the ability and duty to procreate: "And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth," Genesis 1:28.  This is one of the few times that evolution and creation actually sort of agree with each other.  There is neither a creation nor evolutionary imperative for homosexuality as homosexuality does not actually contribute to the continuation of the human race.  Homosexuality relies on artificial means to make procreation possible, and still requires participation of a male or female , as the case may be.  

God established marriage between one man and one woman as the appropriate context in which to continue the human race.  This excludes adultery, homosexuality, premarital relations, simple cohabitation, and pedophelia (yes, psychology is even attempting remove the stigma from pedophilia, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0):

"Therefore a man [Hebrew word, 'iysh, meaning, "man" (male)] shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife [Hebrew word, 'ishshah, meaning female counterpart to male (woman/wife)] , and they shall become one flesh," Genesis 2:24.

"He [Jesus]answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning [GOD] made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate,'" Matthew 19:4-6.

"[Jesus said] But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'  'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh," Mark 10:6-8.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh," Ephesians 5:31, Apostle Paul.

Phsychology today tells us that adultery and other forms of sexual promiscuity are evolutionary imperatives:

"Evolution isn't influenced by the sanctity of marriage. The only thing that matters in evolution is whether a particular trait increases the likelihood of producing greater numbers of offspring that, in turn, will survive and reproduce as well," Why They Stray: The Evolutionary Advantages Of Infidelity, http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/stray-evolutionary-advantages-infidelity-93443.

Where psychology bends all of the rules to make people feel good about themselves, the Bible has a much simpler explanation: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," Psalm 51:5.  We were born in sin.  We sin because it is our nature to do so; it is natural.  And yet, at some level, we intuitively understand that what we are doing is wrong.  Why?  Because we are made in the image of God, corrupted though that image may be.  With that image comes a basic understanding of good and evil:

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them...," Romans 2:14-15.

Why do we feel the need to justify what we do?  Because God's law is hardwired into our conscience.

These are foundational truths of the Bible embraced by Christians.  We do not hide behind them, they are the filter through which we view the world.  And until recent years, they provided order and structure to our society.

Today, everyone is free to do what is right in his own eyes - regardless of the consequences.  And the result is utter chaos.

Love, TRUE LOVE, warns others of the consequences of their choices and actions; it doesn't let them blunder headlong into eternity.  It prays for them.  It speaks with them.  It recognizes that they are created in the image of God, fallen though that image may be, and are to be treated with dignity - something which, admittedly, the church has not always been very good at doing.  It endures being misunderstood.  And it offers hope.

You see, John 3:16-17 is still true:

"For God so loved the world [HIS creation!], that he gave his only Son [Jesus], that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

God sent Jesus to die for us, to save us from ourselves and our sins - to give us new life.

THAT is why the church exists - not to condemn individuals, but to let them know that there is hope.  Yes, that involves naming sin.  We name the sin in the hope of seeing the person come to know the new life that is offered through Jesus the Christ:

"Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others... For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," 2 Corinthians 5:11-21.

God is calling.  He is offering you a new life!  I hope you will accept His offer.   

Time For The Church To Repent….

Amen.

Church, what we see happening today is the result of generations of bad teaching, decisions, and practices where government is concerned - one of which is the practice of dissuading our young people from becoming involved in law and government based on incorrect teaching regarding government and the Christian's place in it.  I cannot tell you how may times during the course of my life I have heard pastors and other Christian leaders tell young people that they have no business as Christians becoming involved in law or government, yet this is CONTRARY to the clear teaching of Romans 13.  Romans 13:1-7 tells us that GOD established and ordained government:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. FOR THERE IS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FROM GOD, AND THOSE THAT EXIST HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED BY GOD.  THEREFORE WHOEVER RESISTS THE AUTHORITIES RESISTS WHAT GOD HAS APPOINTED, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,  for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.  Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.  Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

So if GOD has established and ordained government, where did we ever get the idea that Christians have no place in it?  

If GOD established and ordained LAW, where did we ever get the idea that Christians have no business practicing it?  

And if GOD established and ordained government and law, how can you expect the UNREGENERATE to fulfill either in accordance with His expectations as laid out in His Word?  

What we witnessed today is the direct result of pulling God's influence out of the political and legal realms by dissuading, even vilifying, our young people the moment they showed interest in serving in either of these two fields.  MORALITY IS LEGISLATED!  EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT BECOMES LAW IS A REFLECTION OF SOMEONE'S MORAL CODE!  And yet, by dissuading our young people from entering these two fields of endeavor, we removed God's ministers who could "… build up the wall and stand in the breach before [Him] for the land, that [He] should not destroy it…" Ezekiel 22:30.

It is time for the Church to repent.

The Myth Of American "Gun Violence"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

OSHA: Employers MUST Allow "Transgender" Employees To Use Any Restroom They Desire...

It is now official.  OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) now requires the following of employers:

"Gender identity is an intrinsic part of each person’s identity and everyday life. Accordingly, authorities on gender issues counsel that it is essential for employees to be able to work in a manner consistent with how they live the rest of their daily lives, based on their gender identity. Restricting employees to using only restrooms that are not consistent with their gender identity, or segregating them from other workers by requiring them to use gender-neutral or other specific restrooms, singles those employees out and may make them fear for their physical safety. Bathroom restrictions can result in employees avoiding using restrooms entirely while at work, which can lead to potentially serious physical injury or illness."

So it doesn't matter if the other five women using the restroom at the moment a "transgender" individual walks in feel violated, as long as the single "transgender" individual feels accommodated and "safe".

Transgender and restrooms

When It Becomes Illegal To Display The United States Flag….

SCOTUS declined to hear the case, Dariano vs. Morgan Hill Unified School District, without comment. This is the case of the school district that prohibited students from wearing apparel adorned with the United States flag during a Cinco de Mayo celebration, arguing that such a display could (although it never was) potentially be offensive to hispanics.

In refusing to hear the case, SCOTUS let stand a lower court ruling that allows the prohibition of the display of the flag of the United States - or other expressions of patriotism - on the grounds that such displays could potentially be offensive to members of other ethnic or national groups living among us here in the US.

Now let me take this a step farther. 

Ramadan begins in another week. According to this precedent, we could be prohibited from displaying the US flag for an entire MONTH because it could potentially be offensive to muslims. 

The Republic is about gone.

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/sad-day-in-america-supreme-court-affirms-ruling-that-displaying-us-flag-is-disruptive

I Am N (Nasrani)...

This is the letter spray painted on the homes of Christians throughout ISIS-controlled territory.  It identifies the residents of the home as Nasrani (Nazrene) - Christians.  The residents have four days to decide between the following options:

• Convert to Islam
• Submit to dhimmitude (pay an exorbitant tax that will bankrupt them in exchange for remaining in their home)
• Leave without taking any of their belongings with them
• Die

I am Nasrani.  I pray for those persecuted Christians who find themselves in this situation.  They deserve our support.

Voice of the Martyrs: I Am N

Rand Launches His Filibuster Against Renewal Of Provisions Of The So-called Patriot Act!

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

James Madison

The so-called "patriot act" was one of the biggest attacks on our civil liberties perpetrated by our government - in the name of the war on terror, just as Madison predicted.

It is time to do away with it!!!

I #STANDWITHRAND !!!

New USAG, Loretta Lynch, Praises Baltimore Mayor….

"Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, for your LEADERSHIP over the last several weeks…. I've watched you work very hard to bring back some hope and peace to the city that I know that you love and are clearly committed to….," new USAG Loretta Lynch to mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, in aftermath of violent uprising [emphasis added].

HUH?! 

Are we talking about the same mayor who said, "… we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well…" Is that what Lynch considers bringing "hope and peace" to Baltimore?! Allowing people to destroy the businesses and homes of people who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the death of Freddie Brown is leadership and justice and demonstrates LOVE for the city?! Allowing the destruction of a pharmacy upon which people relied for their necessary prescriptions and burning down a church-based senior living center under construction is something for which you want to PRAISE the mayor?! Where is your concern for the civil rights of THOSE people, truly innocent people who lost homes and livelihoods at the hands of thugs?! You should be launching a civil rights investigation into the MAYOR, not praising her.

THIS is the person republicans caved on in order to affirm her as our new attorney general.

Good job, legislators.

Open Firearms Carry On Michigan School Properties...

There is growing debate regarding our right in Michigan to openly carry firearms on school property when in possession of a concealed pistol license.

There shouldn't be.

Michigan's law is very clear: open carry onto school property by one holding a concealed pistol license is expressly protected (note that I do not say "permitted - it is a RIGHT, not a privilege), and the federal Gun Free School Zones Act (18 USC 922) also contains a specific exemption for concealed pistol license holders: 

"B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
[…] (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;"

For further discussion of Michigan's law, I refer you to MSP legal update 86, which states, 

"The above section does not apply to any of the following:
[…]  A person with a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by any state "
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

That public schools are government entities and therefore subject to Michigan's firearms pre-emption law is clearly established under both federal and state laws and guidelines.

Under IRS definitions, public schools are "instrumentalities," agencies (branches) of governments: 

"An instrumentality is an organization created by or pursuant to state statute and operated for public purposes. Generally, an instrumentality performs governmental functions… 

In Revenue Ruling 57-128, the IRS addressed the question of whether an organization is wholly-owned by one or more states or political subdivisions. In making this determination, the following factors are taken into consideration:

• Whether it is used for a governmental purpose and performs a governmental function
• Whether performance of its function is on behalf of one or more states or political subdivisions
• Whether there are any private interests involved, or whether the states or political subdivisions involved have the powers and interests of an owner
• Whether control and supervision of the organizations is vested in public authority or authorities
• Whether express or implied statutory or other authority is necessary for its creation and/or use of the instrumentality, and whether such authority exists
• The degree of financial autonomy and the source of operating expenses"

According to census.gov, with only a few exceptions, school districts are counted as government entities.

Under MCL 380.501, "A public school academy is a body corporate and is a governmental agency."

Under MCL 380.1311d, "...the strict discipline academy corporation is a governmental entity."

MCL 380.552"...the school of excellence is a governmental entity."

In Michigan, school districts have the power of taxation through the levy of property taxes, making them government subdivisions.

By all objective measures, school districts in Michigan are local units of government and are covered under MCL 123.1102,

"A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

Schools are trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand, they claim NOT to be government agencies for purposes of avoiding Michigan’s pre-emption law, yet they claim the protection they believe their status as government subdivisions affords them in immunity from prosecution.

They can’t have it both ways.  Their appeal to immunity means they truly recognize their status as local units of government.

Assuming their status as local units of government grants them immunity from prosecution, this argument holds up only in so far as the policies and actions of the government agency are lawful. Government immunity does not provide blanket immunity against unlawful policies or activities; policies that violate Michigan's pre-emption law are clearly illegal, therefore invalidating any claim to immunity.