Propagandists coming for your church

June 25, 2017

Propagandists coming for your church

They said they just wanted “equality” and that they would never come for our houses of worship. The gay lobby insisted that all they wanted was “rights” and “marriage” and then they would be happy. It was presented as, “If you like your religion you can keep your religion if you give us what we want.” Did you believe that? I didn’t. I had a feeling they wouldn’t be satisfied until they were standing on the smoldering ruins of religious traditions and people.

The Mormons are next on the hit list, it seems. The LGBT lobby, which is unarguably one of the most repulsive social justice warrior organizations, is running a scam where they use children as props to embarrass and bring down the Mormon church. In an embarrassing and transparent stunt, a 12-year-old girl who claims to be gay stood up in front of her church congregation and lectured them about accepting her and loving all people like Jesus did. Understandably, the plug was pulled and she was asked to sit down.

Speaking at the church’s monthly Fast and Testimony session, the girl, Savannah, said she was a child of “heavenly parents” who had “made me to be gay,” according to a video taken by someone in the audiencewhich has been watched by more than 200,000 people.

But, as she was speaking at the church near Salt Lake City, the microphone was turned off and she was asked to sit down.

Yahoo News reported this as if she had been hauled off stage and thrown into a waiting train headed in the direction of the closest ex-gay therapy camp. It’s not really shocking when a religious institution insists that their message not be corrupted by an opposing philosophy, is it? This was clearly a set-up from the beginning. Why was someone filming her at a church service? Whoever was filming knew what she was going to say, obviously. This whole thing was a set-up to launch the next LGBT war against religion. They really hate the Mormons after theProposition 8 fiasco in California. And I think this viral video makes it clear that the Mormon church is being targeted by the vile left.

What Yahoo thought was going to be a story that would whip people up into an outrage over “diversity, acceptance, and love” seems to have backfired. The comments section is hysterical. It’s like reading my own thoughts except wittier.

My thoughts exactly! Why does the church have to change for the whims of spoiled children? Why doesn’t she go find a church that affirms her? There are plenty of them out there and the numbers are increasing every day! But much like the bakery destruction project, they don’t want to find another bakery (or church). They want to beat this one establishment into the dust at all costs. Today, it’s the Mormon church, tomorrow it will be yours  — and it’s a disgusting way to move an agenda forward. It has always been said that in order to get support for a movement you must change hearts and minds. No one is going to be persuaded to your side when you are ordering, demanding, and persecuting them. People tend to resist things that are forced on them.


The other bothersome trend is all this “coming out” baloney. Is that really necessary anymore? We are living in an era of complete sexual revolution. There is nothing left that is taboo, except maybe child molesting (but they’re working hard to make that one acceptable too). There’s no need to tell people you are lesbian or gay. Date a girl. People will figure it out. Why do people think we want to know about their sexual preferences? And why does the gay community emphasize their gayness over everything else? Why is it an identifier? Can’t you just be a CFO or a waitress? Or is it a requirement of being gay that you must describe yourself as gay first and whatever else you are last?

The comments go on and on like this for a very long time. It’s refreshing to see pushback against ridiculous grandstanding and infiltration like this. Even better is imagining Yahoo’s web guy having to wade through these comments. The bottom line is that churches have a right to define salvation and codes of conduct for members. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. There’s no shortage of blasphemous congregations to join that are more than willing to affirm everything you’ve ever wanted. Go find one.





Hate Speech Laws a Dangerous Trend

June 22, 2016

Hate Speech Laws a Dangerous Trend
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts has introduced legislation calling for the government to investigate “hate speech” on broadcast, cable, and Internet outlets — a bill that is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates and constitutional experts.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called the enactment of hate speech laws a “dangerous trend.”

“I have never in my life seen a successful effort to define hate speech that does not interfere with rights of free expression,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “It is a worthy effort, but my prediction is that it either leads to the conclusion government cannot do it, or that they will do it and that will infringe on First Amendment rights.

“Governments are trying to also make changes to hate speech law and debating the issue in Canada, at the United Nations, and even right now in Israel. It is a worldwide trend, but it is a really dangerous trend,” Dershowitz said.

Announcing the Hate Crime Reporting Act last month, Markey cited three killings at Jewish centers in Kansas by a white supremacist in April, and said in a statement it is “critical to ensure the Internet, television, and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment.”

Markey’s bill directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes” report, which was released in 1993 after then-Rep. Markey used the Telecommunications Authorization Act to mandate the study.

The NTIA will have a year to “examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes” and then would deliver that review to the Senate Judiciary and Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In January, Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York introduced a similar measure — HR 3878 — that also would “mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.”

Ken Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center, told Newsmax that Markey’s bill “strikes me not only as misguided, but also probably a waste of time.

“Studying the prevalence of hate speech on the web or in any other media is a perfectly legitimate examination for academics who want to explore that issue. It is an entirely different matter when government seeks to do that because inevitably they will act on the report,” Paulson said.

Paulson asserted that even if the report requested by Markey comes back finding a prevalence of hate speech, the government cannot do anything about it as a consequence of First Amendment protections of even the most vile speech.

“There always is the concern when Congress studies an issue because there exists that temptation to act on the results,” Paulson said. “If someone posts on the Internet that we should go string someone up and they name that person, and encourage action, that is a different matter. But hateful speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.”

That inherent conflict between government attempts to monitor speech on the Internet and in other media and the First Amendment was not lost on the authors of the initial NTIA report.

In the 1993 report, the NTIA stated its concurrence with those who contend the best response to hate speech is more speech, and not government censorship or regulation.

The report noted that the “electronic media can be used to disseminate messages of bigotry and prejudice; they can also be a powerful tool for promoting tolerance, equality, and harmony. The private sector and government should intensify their efforts to make strong statements supporting tolerance and abhorring bigotry. Such action does not involve sanctioning speech or punishing thought.”

The NTIA further stated that the agency “recognizes the power of telecommunications in disseminating voice, video, or textual messages to large audiences. However, the fact that telecommunications technology can extend and amplify speech does not change the governing First Amendment analysis.”

Conservatives see in both bills a thinly veiled effort to silence or censor conservative voices.

“What the congressional Democrats are targeting isn’t virtual Ku Klux Klan rallies. The left slaps the ‘hate speech’ label on just about anything with which it disagrees. They aim to shut down conservative voices,” asserted The Washington Times editorial board.

Many liberal advocacy groups have expressed their support for the hate crimes bills. Alex Nogales, president and CEO of the
National Hispanic Media Coalition
, said an updated report “is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years, as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others.”

The NHMC has been lobbying for an update of the 1993 report for several years. In January 2009, the NHMC filed a
Petition for Inquiry
at the Federal Communications Commission, asking it to examine hate speech in media, and also sent a letter to the NTIA, asking it to update its 1993 report.

The group’s petition was backed up several months later by
40 civil rights and public interest groups
that requested the FCC take action.

However, some liberals oppose Markey’s and Jeffries’ bills on First Amendment grounds.

Liberal commentator Alan Colmes recently wrote in The Huffington Post that “no matter how many heinous crimes are committed by deplorable white supremacists, it’s inane to make the case that it’s because something someone said on the radio. It takes more than a ranting talk show host to instill the kind of hate in someone that spurs this kind of depraved behavior.”

The introduction of the bills comes even as hate crimes have been on the decrease.

According to the FBI’s 2012 Hate Crimes Statistics, there were 5,796 hate crime incidents reported in 2012, down from 6,222 incidents in 2011.

FBI statistics show an even steeper decline in the years since the NTIA report was issued in 1993. In 1996 — the first year the FBI began comprehensively reporting hate crime figures — 8,759 bias-motivated criminal incidents were reported.

While Dershowitz believes there is greater freedom of speech today, he noted people tend to be more easily offended and more likely to call for a solution for that offense, which can set a dangerous precedent.

“There is an ‘-ism’ for everything — racism, sexism, fatism — and once you give in to one -ism, every other -ism comes back and asks to be treated the same, too. It can be dangerous to satisfy people’s sensitivities,” he said, adding that hurtful words used in political and social debates are “far different than the incitement that led to massacres in Rwanda.

“In America, the pendulum swings far too widely in reaction to these events. The proper response to hate speech is to answer that speech more often, not to censor it. The best solution and answer to hate speech always has been to keep the marketplace of ideas open.”

Sodomite Manifesto Threatens America

June 22, 2016

Christianity and America

March 3, 2016

Christianity and America

Last week, I heard it again: That oft-repeated urban legend that we’ve heard so often. This time, to my horror, I heard it from a well-educated pastor: “Our founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists, atheists, and agnostics.”

Au contraire!

The pilgrims, as you will recall, were, Christians fleeing Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their stay in their new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”

The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who created bible-based commonwealths. Those commonwealths practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants. Those governmental covenants and compacts numbered more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.

New Haven (Connecticut) and Massachusetts were founded by Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England, who later became known as Congregationalists. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven for Catholics from Protestant England.

America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

So, let us take a look at some of the lives and words of our Founding Fathers to see whether they were Christians or whether history has been revised.




CSE 103

August 29, 2015

CSE 103 Class 6

Jihad vs Crusades

July 20, 2015

Jihad vs Crusades

THE CRUSADES: A Direct Response To Islam’s Bloodlust

Most of us infidels in the West have been lied to. Trusting the education system, foolishly, we believed all the bunk bundled into our textbooks concerning the period in history (1096 AD -1272 AD) when the Crusades took place…they left out an itty bitty piece of info…This will be great for all your “enlightened” friends…

The real reason WHY the Crusades took place…and here’s the shocker: It was a response to Islam’s aggression!

That’s right…it all began with Muhammed’s implicit threat more than 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem. He said: “embrace Islam and you will be safe.” (Muhammed’s extortion letter to the Khaibar Jews)

Some facts for your ill-informed friends/family/colleagues:

— The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews…forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates.
— The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont.
— The Crusades were a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering “Muslim lands’”. (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)
— The motives of the Crusaders were pure. They were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a “peaceful”, native Muslim population. The Crusades were NOT for profit, but rather to recover the Holy Land brutally invaded and conquered by Muslims…who conquered for profit and as a notch on their superiority belt.
— The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.

The Islamic world ripped through the Christian world on a bloody Jihad crusade to propagate Islam. Muslim imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles (larger than the British Empire at its peak). The Jihad crusade went from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

The dictionary defines imperialism as “the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries.” This historical Islamic Jihad WAS imperialistic…and its goals remain the same.

Islam’s greed and lust for bloody domination of non-Muslims and their property CAUSED the Crusades…it doesn’t get simpler than that!

Amazing Discoveries

July 20, 2015

Amazing Discoveries

Science is Just about Facts, Religion is Just About Faith / Have you Swallowed the Hook?

Site link:

Hello world!

June 20, 2008

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!