December 05, 2016

Video of "Reverend" Al Sharpton Calling for Killing of Cops and the Fallout

A video surfaced this year showing "Reverend" Al Sharpton calling for African Americans to kill police officers. This man should not have a license to be an ordained Baptist minister, in my opinion. In his vitriolic speech, Al Sharpton says "I don't believe in marches" - that, "You've lost your courage and your guts" - if you aren't willing, "to off," that is, to kill, some police officers. According to his logic, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a total coward and failure. The reality is, however, that Sharpon, and President Obama as well,  have been exhibiting and promoting extreme ethical illiteracy in the manner in which they address racial issues in the US. Not only do they fail to match the achievements of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but their approach has rolled-back King's progress. The speech by Sharpton was apparently given in 1992 at Kean College in New Jersey, as shown on YouTube:



As a fallout of this type of hate speech, racial tensions and racial violence have escalated, and attacking police officers is becoming more common as a general trend. It is a complex situation because there have been cases of unnecessary police violence against African Americans that have been widely displayed and repeated in the MSM news. However, this should be viewed in perspective, and President Obama has failed in this area. He's been racially divisive in that he only points out and stands against violence against African Americans, and practically never the other way around, as WND noted:
   
"...Obama ignores racially motivated crimes against whites, some of which is manifest in the rising anti-Semitism and anti-Christian bigotry here and worldwide. It is an undisputed fact that hate crimes against Jews far exceed those against blacks. But Obama couldn’t care less, particularly since his Muslim roots and sympathies skew his objectivity and interest in doing anything for either Jews or Christians."
 
President Obama displays solidarity with the outspoken racist, Al Sharpton, as NY Daily News offers,  regarding public appearances together: "Obama’s appearance represented a presidential seal of approval of Sharpton’s role as a civil rights activist." And Obama tends to use the softest words possible in discussing such racist-fueled violence against police officers. In a 2016 speech on this matter, the most that Obama can say is, "you are doing a disservice to the cause" -of Black Lives Matter. Both Sharpton and Obama soft-peddle political violence, promoting secular-atheist values and the socialist-Marxist political play book of Saul Alinsky. And then the complicit MSM news generally attempts to assign all of the blame for racial violence on political opponents, such as Donald Trump. In becoming Marxist-socialist tools of the NWO, Sharpton and Obama are helping to ultimately reduce civil rights freedoms on a grand scale.

December 03, 2016

17 Charity CEO Salaries Over $1-Million - Listed 2016



It's that time of year again when people tend to give more to charities. Considering that their ads often give the impression that money you send to them will he used to help poor and suffering people, the following salaries seem excessive and may even be considered unethical. Charity Watch lists 25 excessively paid charity CEOs, with the first 17 names on the list receiving over $1-million per year in annual salaries, as their most recent 2016 summary. This coincides with increasingly dramatic income inequality in society.

17 Charity CEO Salaries Over $1-Million
   
1. Craig B. Thompson, M.D. President/CEO Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center $ 2,925,426 12/31/2014
2. Robert W. Stone President/CEO City of Hope $ 1,765,025 09/30/2015
3. Edward J. Benz, Jr., M.D. President/CEO Dana-Farber Cancer Institute $ 1,539,789 09/30/2015
4. Nancy Brown CEO American Heart Association $ 1,443,427 06/30/2015
5. John R. Seffrin Past CEO American Cancer Society $ 1,404,269 12/31/2014
6. Wayne Brock Past Chief Scout Executive Boy Scouts of America (National Office) $ 1,351,724 12/31/2015

November 23, 2016

Shocking: France bans video showing happy Down syndrome children


Deacon Greg Kandra outlined this story from France:

"On November 10th, the French ‘State Counsel’ rejected an appeal made by people with Down syndrome, their families and allies to lift the ban on broadcasting the award winning “Dear Future Mom” video on French television. The ban was previously imposed by the French Broadcasting Counsel. Kids who are unjustly described as a ‘risk’ before they are born, are now wrongfully portrayed as a ‘risk’ after birth too. The video features a number of young people from around the globe telling about their lives. Their stories reflect today’s reality of living with Down syndrome and aims to reassure women who have received a prenatal diagnosis. Their message of hope takes away the fears and questions these women may have, often based on outdated stereotypes. The video was produced in 2014 to celebrate World Down Syndrome Day. A day created by Down Syndrome International and officially recognized by the United Nations for the promotion of the human rights of people with Down syndrome."

November 22, 2016

If You are Still Angry and Bitter Weeks After the Election...


I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be especially angry and bitter after this presidential election and I am concerned. This is a list of possible ideas to help get over the election, to feel peace as an individual, to heal as a nation, and to move forward. If you see that I have missed anything that might be helpful, please post a comment.

If You are Still Angry and Bitter Weeks After the Election...
   
1. Accept that it was basically a standard and fair election.
2. Realize that anger and bitterness will not change the final vote count.
3. Consider that supporting a bitter attitude can ultimately encourage violence and destruction.
4. Civil and respectful dialogue is better than promoting anger, violence and destruction.
5. It's helpful to list specifically what you are bitter about for constructive conversation.
6. Accept that the mainstream media has been offering dishonest news on the election.
7. Consider that others doing research may have facts that are more accurate than your information.
8. A person may consider one issue as most important, such as opposing late-term abortions.
9. You can agree to disagree, if you believe that your opinion or top issue is more valid or important.
10. Try not to alienate and cut off family members and friends because of politics or bitterness.

November 20, 2016

Quote by Cast of Hamilton and the False Progressive PC Narrative


If you look at the recent sermon by the cast of Hamilton, a Broadway play named after Alexander Hamilton, it's simply a continuation of the establishment media untruthfulness and what we've recently seen in academia with regard to trumped-up alarmist behavior. The brief lecture was aimed at Vice President Mike Pence, as he attended the Broadway musical:
   
“We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights,” he said. “We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

Actual violence against Trump supporters vs. 'victim' claims by the left
     
The first hypocrisy noted in the Hamilton lecture is the alarmist language implying that PC liberals will not be protected by the new administration. This is extremely ironic and hypocritical. Candid videos by James O’Keefe showed that Democrat organizations funded by the Clinton campaign were literally paying protesters to instigate violence at Trump rallies. Robert Creamer was fired after this revelation.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

After the elections, physical violence against Trump supporters has continued unabated. Trump supporters are not safe from violence in the U.S. Many documented examples are shown at the following link.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/left-freaking-out-as-bubble-of-delusion-bursts/

Neither President Obama or Hillary Clinton have called for their supporters to stop acting out violently. Don't take my word for it. Google “Obama calls for violence to stop” and you will find no relevant words by the president. While stereotyping and leftist fear-mongering continue, there are fake hate crimes labeling Trump supporters as "haters" or "neo-Nazis,"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/fake-hate-jewish-students-painted-swastika-trump-campus-church/
   
The following quote highlights the hypocrisy of the narrative, as made by the Hamilton actor that lectured Mike Pence about racism and the need to feel safe:

"St. Patty's day weekend is like Christmas for black dudes who like white chicks. Happy holidays boys."

http://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/actor-lectured-pence-probably-wishes-never-tweeted

  

It seems hypocritical for Brandon V Dixon to lecture Pence on racism and feeling safe when his own Twitter comment seems to imply that he encourages African American men to take advantage of drunk white women on St. Patrick's Day. This could even be taken as an insinuation that date rape is okay. But this is not all. Dixon re-tweeted, and approved of, the following comment: "4 every racist comment I get about Trayvon Im going 2 turn 1 white married suburban housewife & mother n2 a jump off" The. Best." The term, "jump off" is slang for a whore. So, Dixon approves of vindictive black men turning married white women with children into prostitutes.

November 16, 2016

Why Academic "Safe Space" is Absurd and Self-Contradictory


 
As an American, I am embarrassed that so many U.S. "higher learning" institutions are reinforcing "safe space" havens that are censored from intellectual discourse after the 2016 presidential election. The safe space concept began in England with the idea that LGBT college students needed an environment free from harassment. This, however, has not only become a permanent feature of higher education, but the umbrella and purpose of the safe space subject matter is widening to the degree that most cutting-edge subjects cannot be actively debated for fear of committing a hate crime. Colleges and universities have become politicized with PC liberal-secular values to the point where only one world-view ideology is permissible.  
       
Think about it. The classic philosopher Socrates promoted questions and live debate because this provides probably the best method for revealing misconceptions. But the "safe space" idea promotes the opposite, isolation from any challenges to personal preconceptions. This is absurd when considered in an academic context. When I explained to my 4th-grade son that college students were being given crayons and Play-Doh in order to escape from reality for a little while and to feel better after the "tragic" Trump victory, he didn't believe me. But it's true, with many examples.
 
Leading up to the 2016 election, some
Emory University students demanded safe space after seeing "Trump 2016" written in chalk on a sidewalk. After the legal election, Cornell University supported a "cry in" for students: "Willard Straight Hall Resource Center employees gave out blankets, tissues and hot chocolate to keep participants warm, while students signed posters with words of encouragement and protest, including 'Donald Trump is not my president,'" The University of Massachusetts issued an invitation to deal with the implied traumatic election results: "Today there is a Post-election self-care session from 12-4pm in Moloney. The event will include cookies, mandalas, stress reduction techniques and mindfulness activities. Counseling and Health Services will also be available." Universities such as Michigan U. provided their students with crayons and Play-Doh. 

Top 10 Reasons Why Trump Won the 2016 U.S. Election - Listed


We the American people have spoken with our votes, and the result speaks volumes.

We do not believe that a child should be aborted up to the very moment of birth. We do not want corporate lobbyists controlling the government and issues of human health and the environment. We do not believe that investigating governmental corruption and lawlessness is "silly" or a "distraction" - but is important for the survival of the country. We by and large do not trust and follow the biased and untruthful fodder of the MSM news anymore, that has been laid bare for all to see during this election process.

We believe that unity based on lies and corruption is not real unity at all, but that true healing and unity can only be established based on truth and justice.Trump won based on this platform and these positions.

Trump won the electoral college vote by a landslide. But there is talk that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. However, this is unlikely if one takes into consideration the the promotion of election fraud by the Democrat Party. Greg Phillips of the
 VoteFraud.org organization stated, "We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens. We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action."

Here's a list of the top 10 reasons why Trump won the 2016 US Election:

 
1. Pro-life platform. A reaction to Clinton's extreme last-minute pro-abortion agenda, as promoted by Planned Parenthood.

2. Anti-lobbyist platform. A vow not to allow lobbyists to control the government, as Obama is doing and as Clinton is doing, and promises to continue, based on innumerable documented examples.

3. Anti-corruption platform. Tim Brown has documented 504 examples of President Obama's corruption, and more recently partisan crony corruption has been demonstrated between Obama, Lorretta Lynch, the FBI and other government entities, such as the IRS.
 

October 24, 2016

Powerful Abortion-Survivor Testimony and Facts about Planned Parenthood

Gianna Jessen has a powerful testimony as a survivor of abortion. She clears up a lot of disinfo about Planned Parenthood and I'd recommend watching and learning from her experience and continued research as an activist.

Many, many people have been fooled by Planned Parenthood and the issues at hand. I believe it warrants going through each point one by one to confront the propaganda.

Myth 1:  No US abortions are funded publicly.
Facts: Public Medicaid provides abortions. “...seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services.” https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion

And PP provides legal attacks to increase this number, Mississippi being the latest.


Clinton wants all states to provide taxpayer funding for abortions: “The new platform approved last month in Philadelphia, however, is explicit: “We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.””


Myth 2: Planned Parenthood (PP) aims only to provide health and safety in "women's reproductive healthcare."
Facts: Giving natural birth and offering a child for adoption is safer for the mother and there is less possible depression associated with this. Click on PP's website and the word "adoption" is not seen. Click on the "Facts on Abortion" link and you will not see the FACT that natural birth is safer than abortion and the FACT that there is less depression associated with natural birth and adoption. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/  For sake of posterity, I've made webclips showing this:

October 01, 2016

Are GMO Crops & Food Really Safe? A 2016 Summary





There is a lot of content on the Internet claiming that the debate is over, that GMO food is completely safe and that there is no threat to the environment, because certain authorities claim it is so. But the debate is really not over in 2016. A lot of “what ifs” and facts remain that challenge these claims of food and environmental safety. This subject is especially poignant considering that behemoth chemical and pesticide giant Bayer just bought GMO giant Monsanto this week.

1. What if the authorities that claim GMO food is perfectly safe personally choose organic food for themselves and their families?

2. What if the largest investors in GMO were shown to be stockpiling pure heirloom, organic non-GMO seeds for their own posterity?

3. What if the GMO food industry was set up in such a manner as to make it basically legally impossible to try to challenge the safety of GMO foods in public without a lawsuit?

4. What if GMO behemoths are creating a monopolization of agriculture within the control of an extremely limited amount of companies?

5. What if the increase of pesticides used in conjunction with GMO agriculture is inherently destroying bee populations and, thus, helping to destroy the environment in general, not just personal health?

6. What if weeds and pests have been increasingly resistant to GMO pesticides and GMO pesticide use is increasing dramatically, exacerbating the negative effects on the environment?

7. What if the long term use of glyphosate, the most popular herbicide, is destroying the soil?

8. What if large GMO companies were hiring propaganda artists to spread lies about GMO safety?

I've supported the first two points in a previous article, linked here, but wish to show evidence of the latter six points here in this post.

A Legally Protected Hazard – GMO seeds are usually patented. The use of the patented seeds, in any manner, requires contractual permission. Rich Dupre pointed out, "Ever since the introduction of genetically modified crops into the food chain, the tussle has been largely between farmers and Monsanto , which says since 1997 it has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers who've improperly reused its patented seeds, or on average about one lawsuit every three weeks for 16 straight years." Also, if a testing laboratory does not have contractual permission to test GMO seeds then theoretically it could be sued for violating intellectual patent law. I believe that this motivates independent laboratories to avoid important testing and only those under the control of GMO firms are likely to be approved for such testing. Nevertheless, Egypt did publish a study in 2012 that found GMO foods conducive to organ failure. The study was titled, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” is the longest GMO feeding study ever to be conducted on rats.

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/13/monsantos-gmo-seeds-may-no-longer-be-invincible/20829823/?gen=1
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/groundbreaking-study-links-monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-organ-failure

The Monopolization of Food – Aside from water and clean air, food is a fundamental human necessity. If the US Standard Oil Company was broken up due to a threat of monopolization, how much more should the monopolization of agriculture, through patented seeds, be considered a threat? India has taken to banning GMO seeds and has pointed out the obvious threat: “Seed sovereignty is not a baseless ideological position, but a pragmatic approach. It is an integral part of food security and sovereignty of a community or a nation." Instead of raising such warnings, President Obama appointed the former vice president of Monsanto, Michael Taylor, as the head of the FDA, giving even more inherent control and protection to Monsanto and the GMO industry. Chemical giant Bayer just bought Monsanto for $66 billion, making the monopoly even bigger. It has become clear that lobbyists, not public interest, control politics and laws in the US today, even as the US Congress and President Obama ushered in the "DARK Act" in 2016 preventing readable labeling of GMO products.

September 28, 2016

UN 2030 Agenda - The Global Criminalization of Biblical Christianity



Get ready for United Nations' 2030 Agenda. US President Obama announced, "In order to realize the promise of the UN, the US must give up freedoms" - when addressing the UN. This may be the understatement of the year for Obama, considering his documented attacks against religious freedom in the US, for example. Coincidentally, the UN "2030 Agenda" is replacing Agenda 21. Daisy Luther of the Activist Post explains how the 2030 Agenda could actually help to usher in a totalitarian one-world government:

"Simple: it is entirely impossible to achieve what they have laid out without a one-world government, the New World Order we have heard so much about over the last few years."
While the goals may at first seem idyllic, the global totalitarianism implied, and the loss of basic civil time-honored freedoms, is nightmarish. This is the path that Hillary Clinton would have us follow. As the Lancet pointed out, the UN 2030 Agenda will be used to impose subjective secular humanist values on the entire world, as a "human right" - and thus will ultimately help to the criminalize of the traditional biblical world view.
  
"One theme seen throughout the 2030 Agenda document is “inclusion” or “no person left behind”. Apparently, transgender rights are now categorized as human rights so that they can be enforced on the rest of humanity." - This is in keeping with both Obama's and Clinton's agenda and is in diametric opposition to biblical values.

Vitit Muntarbhorn of Thailand is the first U.N. independent expert charged with investigating violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. John Fisher, Geneva director of Human Rights Watch, said his appointment on Friday “made history” and “will bring much-needed attention to human rights violations against LGBT people in all regions of the world.” as reported by WND. We have already seen how assigning the right to gay marriage has broadenend now to where cases of "rainbow fascism" are being applied to anyone with a dissenting opinion, that may prefer science and biology to personal emotions as a means of defining sex. 


September 24, 2016

List of Best Nutrition and Health Documentaries for Adults and Children














 
Are you being a good steward of your body and of your family's health? The chart shows obesity statistics from 1978 to 2011 in various countries, with the US displaying the worst results in increasing obesity in terms of larger industrialized nations. 
There are excellent documentaries that show the reasons why obesity is skyrocketing and what can be done about it. The bottom line is that there is big money in processed foods, in medicine, in MSM media propaganda, and in sugar lobbying, that have together kept valuable information from the public. Because some films offer simple and natural healing concepts, such as Beautiful Truth and Forks over Knives, these tend to draw the and vitriolic ire of the medical establishment.
 
I'm not offering any promises, claims, or certified health advice by presenting these films, just recommending that anyone interested in living a healthier and happier life should probably learn of the different views, studies and experiments that have been conducted. In my opinion, and my wife and children's opinions as well, these are the best ones we've seen. I'm sure that there are great ones that we haven't even seen yet. We don't agree with everything in each film, but most of it does make sense and seems very helpful. If you've never heard of "The China Study" you should probably watch Forks Over Knives, just to be aware of the largest nutrition and health study in history. As Christians, we are to be good stewards of all that God has given us, including our bodies. 


Recommended Documentary Films Available at Public Libraries and Netflix:

Films that Both Adults and Children Would Like:

That Sugar Film (2014): (pretty funny)

Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010): (adventurous travelogue)

Beautiful Truth (2008): (15-year old boy narrates)

Films Geared Towards Adults:

Fed Up (2014): (American version with Katie Couric)

Forks Over Knives (2011)

Food Matters (2008)

Food, Inc. (2008)

(Chart Credit of Obesity rates from around the world by Mark Kelly, Heartspring.net © 2012).

Tags: Best health films, best nutrition films, top documentaries on health and nutrition, funny documentaries on nutrition, film about organic foods, raw food film, the China Study, international obesity chart 1978 to 2011

September 20, 2016

Obama Blames Indie News For "Misinformation" - Set To Shut Off Internet Freedom








A Gallup Poll showed trust in mainstream news is at an all time low. 

Published September 14, 2016, the Gallup Poll displays a chart that has MSM news corporations and Hillary Clinton panicking. Trust in mainstream news is at an all time low, with only 32% trusting it.. The establishment means of manipulating public opinion is crashing and burning. Most of the MSM news supporting Hillary Clinton is so extremely and blatantly biased and unobjective that people are increasingly flocking to alternative indie news sources. One point of grave concern is, however, that Obama apparently intends to relinquish US control of Internet freedom to parties that most likely will be more totalitarian in their approach.

1. President Obama lashed out at alternative news sites and bloggers claiming that "misinformation" was being spread, shortly after this Gallup Poll was released by the pollsters on September 18th. This was ironic considering that the MSM has obviously become the main culprit when it comes to misinformation and distortion.

2. CNN then followed suit in the blame game, claiming that Donald Trump is, “taking credit for that drop in trust". CNN is perhaps at the top of the list, when it comes to MSM bias, disinfo and propaganda. See here, here and here for recent examples.
 
3. President Obama is now set to relinquish Internet freedom on October 1, 2016 to the globalist powers that be, that are not exactly freedom loving. This could jeopardize the presidential election and will likely wipe out Internet free speech in the long run. The Hill asks, "Why change it now and so close to the election?"

August 12, 2016

Video: 2016 Fiji Rugby Team Sings Hymn of Thanks to God After Winning Gold Medal


In case you haven't seen this... the Fiji rugby team won gold, and it was actually the very first Olympic medal in the country's history. And after the men sang a hymn, "We Will Overcome by the Blood of the Lamb" - with great emotion, they prayed and thanked God, giving God all the glory for their victory!
Pretty inspiring moment, I think. NBC probably didn't censor this because they had no clue what they were singing about. 

"The LORD reigns, let the earth rejoice; Let the many islands be glad." (Psalms 97.1 NASB)

Click the following link for the NBC video of the players singing:


http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/fiji-rugby-players-sing-after-winning-gold

Tags: Free video of Fiji rugby team signing hymn of praise to God at Rio Olympics 2016, Christian athletes Rio Olympics, Fiji rugby team video, 

August 10, 2016

Is Michael Phelps' Christian Testimony Missing Something?



I've read a number of catchy headlines implying that Michael Phelps is a true Christian with a powerful Christian testimony, but there is something important missing in each account, that is, Christ. Phelps told ESPN that the The Purpose Driven Life book, “turned me into believing there is a power greater than myself and there is a purpose for me on this planet.”
 
Michael Phelps has broken several kinds of world records. When he won his 19th Olympic medal, he officially had won the most Olympic medals in history. He is truly an astounding athlete. However, there was a low point in Phelp's life, after he had already become famous as an Olympic swimmer, when he was heavily into drugs and feeling suicidal. It was at this point Phelps hit "rock bottom" about the time photos surfaced of Phelps taking a hit off a bong. "I was like a time bomb, waiting to go off. I had no self-esteem, no self-worth. There were times (when) I didn't want to be here. It was not good. I felt lost," he said. At his low point, Phelps received guidance from Christian and NFL linebacker, Ray Lewis, per this account:

August 02, 2016

Key Points on the "Christian Vote" in 2016

  
There is a tendency today for Christians to avoid discussing politics. But stakes are higher in this presidential election and I'm hoping that you'd like to be informed. I'll address common objections to politics by Christians and then move on to aspects of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Wayne Grudem, a Christian ethics teacher for 39 years, wisely encourages Christians to respectfully discuss and debate politics in the US. His article, "Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice" emphasized that: "...we need to keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences."
 
The discussion of ideas is a part of a normal democracy
         
Firstly, those involved directly in ministry work often feel that any talk of politics will jeopardize their non-profit tax status. And this shunning of political talk can reverberate through entire church congregations. This position, in my opinion, is not helpful to society regarding the Church's historical role as salt and light, and may even imply subservience to the state over the conscience. Secondly, an opinion is that political conversations might thwart evangelism. Amy Gannet considers evangelism the top priority of the Church and, therefore, directs others to avoid any political involvement, just to be safe. This may be her personal conviction, but she offers no reason why her generalization should apply to all Christians. Personally and prayerfully following conscience, many find that reducing abortions, or other issues, may take precedence over evangelism in any given election. Thirdly, many Christians believe that talking politics is not appropriate, or it is less spiritual for Christians, because Jesus never talked politics. Again, like the previous point, this generalization does not reflect the biblical New Covenant tenet that the Holy Spirit guides all of us Christians of the universal Church today as individuals and by conscience. William Wilberforce, for example, had a very strong conviction to politically oppose slavery in England. Had he not done so, it is conceivable that slavery would have continued much longer. Fourthly, some contend that pointing out documented corruption in a political candidate is slanderous. But let's be clear, the definitions of "slander" and "libel" relate only to making false statements.

Not voting altogether

There are a number of people promoting the "purist" position that Christians should not vote at all, if candidates hold any positions that they do not agree with, or have serious character issues. If by prayer the Holy Spirit is personally guiding someone not to vote, I would agree with this purist position. But most of the reasoning I have heard to justify this position seems to be based solely on ill-founded logic. For example, Catholics and Orthodox I dialogue with oppose the, "lesser of the evils" approach and claim that this is in fact embracing a utilitarian philosophy that is not Christian. But this appears overly simplistic. On any given day, we perform numerous tasks based on the pragmatic or utilitarian approach to problem solving, to achieve the most happiness. Voting for the lesser of the evils in no way makes us official philosophical "utilitarians" than choosing to use both bleach and soap in the laundry washer makes us philosophical utilitarians. One could argue that Trump speaks with more sinful language and overtones but that Clinton acts with more evil intent, breaking more laws, therefore, Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. I would offer that these types of questions all come down to personal convictions. Romans 14.23 outlines that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. So a key factor is to ask if we have peace and any inner convictions, after we prayerfully consider not voting altogether, or voting for a certain candidate. But we should not confuse this type of answer with excuses employing faulty logic. Philip Swicegood wrote a long article on Trump with this conclusion: "He (Trump) is not entitled to it (your vote), and you will not be helping Hillary Clinton if you choose not to." The second phrase is plainly false. If Trump and Clinton have a close election and many Christians choose not to vote simply out of apathy or frustration, clearly this could help Clinton to win.   

July 26, 2016

Wikileaks Shows How Democrat Party Exploits Hispanics


 
The Democrat exploitation and racism against Hispanics will probably not be mentioned in biased mainstream news. And neither will the ethical illiteracy on display with the celebration of law breaking at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). But in social media, we are the news. The main DNC strategy email reveals not one iota of interest in the needs of the Hispanic community, rather, it highlights different aspects in which Hispanics can be stereotyped as a consumer group for exploitation in the political process by Democrats for this purpose: "capture this demographic."
  
"The document makes sweeping generalizations about Latinos (which on planet earth is usually referred to as “racism”) in order to sell them, as “consumers,” on the Democratic vote."
 
Some of the comments insinuate that Hispanics do not consider facts, logic or critical thinking at all, but make decisions entirely based on "brand loyalty" and "story telling." I would find this extremely insulting if I was Hispanic. With the Democrats alleging that Trump is a racist for wanting to build a wall, it may be time to come to terms with the racism in the Democrat Party showing that Hispanics mean nothing more than basically a means to more power and control over the people.

July 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton, Socialism and Marxism in the US Democratic Party

 
There seems to be a lot of denial about Marxism and socialism in the United States today, especially with regard to people supporting the Democrat Party. If you've ever had to clarify this: "I did not call you or Obama a socialist or a Marxist." - then maybe you can relate to a common problem that comes up in this discussion. Unless someone self-identifies with a political stance, I would hesitate to label a person. Nevertheless, one can point out how tenets of socialism and Marxism have become widely promoted by the US Democrat Party. And deep ideological common ground helps to explain why Bernie Sanders first insinuated that Hillary was corrupt, supporting status-quo political corruption throughout her career, and then endorsed her for presidency.
 
To be clear, I believe that both the Republican Party and Democratic Party have become corrupted by crony capitalism and extensive corporate lobbying and that Congress has been failing to uphold reasonable checks and balances in the system on behalf of the populace, with many career politicians on both sides apparently interested mainly in extending a lucrative career and not taking any risks. In discussing the main topic, it's helpful to separate what is inclusive of socialism and Marxism versus what is exclusive. It's also important to understand that communism is a progressive agenda that actually incorporates capitalism and then socialism before achieving global communism. For this reason, the exploitation of corporate lobbyists by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for example, can be considered perfectly in keeping with a globalist socialist-communist agenda.
 
The state-owned means of production is inclusive in the definition of socialism and so is the heavy regulation of business. The word "community" is really a euphemism for "government" in a basic definition of socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

June 09, 2016

Why Atheism and Polytheism are Illogical



This may be discouraging for atheists, but in accordance with the latest definitions of "atheism" by the most respected sources, atheism is illogical. It's important to use the most accurate and reputable definitions. While you probably shouldn't use a Black and Decker drill as a tool to perform medical surgery, you also probably shouldn't use Webster's dictionary for philosophical definitions, if you have philosophical sources available.
    

Definitions of "atheism":

"Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
  

"The theory or belief that God does not exist." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)


Why Atheism is Illogical

Summary Argument
  

1) With respect to agnosticism, if atheism means, "the negation of theism" and the “denial of God's existence,” and history shows that there is no convincing evidence to demonstrate that theism and God have been negated and denied, then choosing atheism is illogical.

2) History shows that atheists have not logically demonstrated probability that theism and God have been negated and denied.
  
3) Therefore, with respect to agnosticism, choosing atheism is illogical.


Expanded points
  

1. The burden is on those who wish to affirm a belief or position to offer reason and evidence in support of such. 
  
2. According to Stanford, "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." And Oxford defines atheism as, "The theory or belief that God does not exist." - with both definitions implying a positive claim is being assumed, as opposed to agnosticism, in which a lack of belief is emphasized.

3. Philosophical definitions of "atheism" in context are more appropriate than a generic description as, "a lack of belief in God" - which also could apply to agnosticism. 
  
4. In terms of logic, the atheist truth claim, “God does not exist,” is not an analytic truth claim and is not strictly provable. Likewise, the truth claim of atheism is not a synthetic one because it cannot be strictly demonstrated. For these reasons, atheism cannot be strictly proved.