I am NOT making this up. In the event that nuclear catastrophe occurs, billions die and the world is actually destroyed by the hands of man, those who are lucky enough to find themselves inside nuclear shelters must remember to wear a mask and social distance if sharing such shelter with non-family members.
 
This is the unsurprising-for-this-regime’s priority in the case that Brandon screws up so badly that world leaders arbitrarily decide to call it a day for the human race. COVID is always the priority.
 
Now, to be fair, this isn’t utterly new advice. This has actually been on the website Ready.gov since November 11th, 2020, three days after our election began to be openly stolen.
 
For context, the website has advice on getting inside shelters and staying inside of them:
 
“Get inside the nearest building to avoid radiation. Brick or concrete are best.”
 
This is, of course, assuming you’ve survived the initial detonation to begin with.
 
“Remove contaminated clothing and wipe off or wash unprotected skin if you were outside after the fallout arrived. Hand sanitizer does not protect against fall out. Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, if possible. Do not use disinfectant wipes on your skin.”
 
“Go to the basement or middle of the building. Stay away from the outer walls and roof.”
 
So far, relatively sound advice, I’d presume. Don’t know how applicable this would be to most people, and I don’t doubt that radiation could eventually make its way to people even inside brick or concrete buildings, but in such a devastating event, there is little that really matters anymore. Either you’re dead or you’re screwed in a post-apocalyptic wasteland with irradiated water, crops, and animals, as it applies. But as sound as advice that may be, here comes the sadly embarrassing part: “Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household.”
 
Now, I don’t know for sure, and searching “can viruses survive nuclear fallout” didn’t yield me any results, but I’m not so sure that the Chinese coronavirus would be able to survive nuclear war any more than humanity would.
 
Even if it does, it’s far from a priority in such an event, for crying out loud. Aside from the already well-known facts of its non-lethality and the uselessness of masks, whoever manages to survive a nuclear explosion isn’t going to be worried about catching this or any virus.
 
Well, maybe idiots in the Left coast would, but not anyone remotely sane. The virus isn’t an end-of-the-world event, nuclear war is. There are about a million other things you’d have to worry about before the darned Chinese coronavirus.
 
Things pertaining to survival such as finding and staying inside a bomb shelter that could actually withstand modern nuclear arsenal and fallout. Things like having a large enough food supply and stable water supply that is separate from other water which could become contaminated. Things like having weaponry and ammo to protect yourself against those who will inevitably revert to raiding. Things like being able to adapt to the new state of the planet and trying to rebuild humanity.
 
Only a stable society has the luxury to worry about pandemics.
 
This advice, of course, was picked apart and mocked online for its sheer stupidity. One political commentator wrote: “’Wear a mask in the event of a nuclear fallout’… from the same government who told kids to hide under a desk in case of a nuclear bomb.”
 
Which does bring up something interesting. Even back in the day, when we thought America was America, the U.S. government was pushing bullcrap on people. Everyone and their grandmother likely knew that a wooden desk in a school classroom would do absolutely nothing to protect the students in case of a nuclear detonation.
 
“Oh, but it was probably done to keep the kids calm and not worry”. First, it was called the “Red Scare” for a reason; it was scary. Kids were undoubtedly scared either way. Second, do you know how you can achieve that without lying to kids and looking like utter morons? Telling the kids to pray.
 
Supposedly, this was a more Christian country back in the day, so why not make that the number one advice for children?
 
Why not be upfront with them and say that if there is a nuclear explosion outside of our school, the desks won’t do anything to protect you, but God certainly will. Not necessarily on Earth, but most definitely in Heaven.
 
What/who would you rather trust? A shoddy wooden desk that has “Billy rulez and Stevie droolz” written on it with a pencil, or the Almighty God, Master of the Universe, Creator of Heaven and Earth?
 
If kids see a nuclear explosion outside their schools, they’re going to be deathly afraid anyway, so that advice is less than worthless. At that point, they might as well trust in the safety and warmth of God than in the insecure confines of their cold desks.
 
God should have always been the number one priority for this country, and the state it finds itself in is the result of failure to do so. Now, we have morons in elected and unelected offices who dictate that people should wear masks and MAINTAIN SIX FEET APART INSIDE NUCLEAR SHELTERS in the event of nuclear war.
 
Let us turn to Him once again that we may undo the societal damage that has been created by the unbelievers.
 
Psalm 91:1-2
“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.’”

The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is inerrant, unmalleable and eternal.
 
It begins with the established truth that God exists, necessarily, as Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It predetermines God’s existence in a universe devoid of anything, and depicts Him as the Creator of everything. Without God, there can be nothing, as something can’t come from nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
 
Us Christians understand this, at least when we put our minds to it, and trust in the Word of God as Truth. And this is not a blind trust either, as the Bible, if nothing else, is a basically reliable historical document, depicting stories and events throughout history which are backed by archaeological discoveries.
 
The Word of God is Truth, and seemingly, this is what psychologist Jordan Peterson has come to realize very recently.
 
Peterson appeared on a recent episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, in which they discussed culture, society and the Bible, with Peterson saying that the Bible serves as the bedrock of culture.
 
“If categories just dissolve, especially fundamental ones, the culture is dissolving, because the culture is a structure of category,” began Peterson. “That’s what it is. So and in fact, culture is a structure of category that we all share. So we see things the same way. But that’s why we can talk, I mean, not exactly the same way, because then we have nothing to talk about. But, roughly speaking, we have a bedrock of agreement. That’s the Bible, by the way. So, I just walked through the Museum of the Bible in Washington. That was very cool. It’s [a] very cool museum.”
 
Joe Rogan then asked Peterson: “So the structure, that’s what the Bible provides?”
 
To which Peterson gets into the meat of his argument and revelation:
 
“Yeah, that’s what I figured out. I just figured this out this week. So it was a cool, it was cool thing to walk through, because it’s, it’s chronological, they have one floor, which is the history of the Bible… it’s really what it is, is the history of the book. Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally, because at one point, there was only one book, like, as far as our western cultures concerned, there’s one book. And for a while, literally, there was only one book. And that book was the Bible. And then before it was the Bible, it was, you know, scrolls, and it was writings on papyrus.”
 
“And… we were starting to aggregate written texts together. And it went through all sorts of technological transformations. And then it became books that everybody could buy, the book everybody could buy, and the first one of those was the Bible, and then it became all sorts of books that everybody could buy. But all those books, in some sense, emerged out of that underlying book. And that book itself, the Bible, isn’t a book, it’s a library. It’s a collection of books.”
 
“And so what I figured out was, partly because I was talking to my brother in law, Jim Keller… we were talking about meaning and text, because we were talking about translation and the problem of understanding text. And Jim said, the meaning of words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another, and the postmodernist make that case that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That’s wrong, because, well, what about rage? That’s not words. And what about moving your hand? That’s not words. So it’s wrong, but part of it is right, because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So now, then you think, well, let’s think about the relationship between words while some words are dependent on other words, some ideas are dependent on other ideas, the more ideas are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is… that’s a definition of fundamental.”
 
Peterson then brings up the idea that, whatever texts exist in a civilization, there must be a fundamental text on which all the other texts depend, and that the Bible is said fundamental text. He brought up authors like Shakespeare, Milton and Dante for being part of the “Western canon”, as he put it, as they influenced other texts in the West. But even those books have the Bible at its base, as Peterson said.
 
Peterson concludes his lengthy and rather round-about explanation by saying: “And so it isn’t that the Bible is true. It’s that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true. It’s a whole different kind of true, and I think this is… not only literally the case, factually, I think it can’t be any other way.”
 
What I believe Peterson to be arguing is that, in order for anything else to be true, the Bible must be the first and fundamental Truth.
 
Whatever truth other books and texts provide must first be true according to God.
 
For example, the truth of binary genders. There is only male and female, as Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
 
God never created “transgenders”, because there is no such thing as “transgender.” If you are male, you cannot become female, no matter what body deformations you put yourself through. The same is true of females. Any book which acknowledges the truth of binary genders, namely biology textbooks which haven’t been corrupted by their woke publishers, is thus speaking a truth which first relies on the Truth of Scripture.
 
Another example is anything pertaining to other things which are uncontestably true, such as gravity, the sky being blue, the way human or animal bodies work, cellular biology, etc. Scientists may not all have everything figured out, at least when it comes to the scientific studies of the universe, but what they do say as truth is first dependent on the Higher Truth, or Ultimate Truth.
 
For example, we don’t really know how black holes work, but we know they are there because God created black holes. As a result of that lack of knowledge, we can’t presently tell people whatever truth pertains to black holes apart from the fact that they exist and that they usually are formed when massive stars reach the end of their lifespans and implode, collapsing in on themselves and forming a small but massive black hole.
 
Funny enough, in researching this very matter, I came across an article which talks about how black holes form, and it talks about two twists regarding what we know about black holes, only one of which is really important.
 
It reads: “[I]t would take longer than the universe’s current age for black holes that started as dead stars to grow to galaxy-center-sized black holes. So astronomers also think the universe may have jumpstarted the process by creating giant primordial black holes in the moment just after the Big Bang – though this is just as weird and problematic as you might think.”
 
One doesn’t really think it’s all that weird, let alone problematic, if one understands the Truth of God.
 
The theory here is that black holes take longer than the universe’s current age to form into the massive black holes that we see at the center of galaxies, such as the one in the middle of the Milky Way, or the closest galaxy to us, Andromeda. As a result, the fact that such massive black holes not only currently exist but have existed for a very long time has godless scientists scratching their heads in confusion.
 
How can it be that they exist if black holes take longer than the age of the universe to form? Assuming that their calculations are correct, both regarding the age of the universe and how long it takes for black holes to become that big or massive, the only logical explanation is close to what the article provides, though with a different source.
 
God, not the universe, created giant primordial black holes after the Big Bang (or when God created the universe) to situate planets and solar systems, thus creating galaxies. Though regarding the age of the universe, God created Adam and Eve to be adults rather than mankind's usual starting age of infancy, so He could have created the universe to appear aged as well (either that, or age is an effect of sin, but that's a different discussion entirely).
 
Regardless, God designed and created a universe that makes sense and isn’t random (for such a universe would be contradictory to the idea of intelligent design), and made things work in particular ways. He created the Earth to be habitable, created the animals which roam it, and created man and woman to live on it.
 
He designed the other planets to not be habitable, as they were unnecessary for the purpose of creating life. Though, if He desired to, obviously, He could change that either gradually or immediately.
 
Regardless, God created the heavens and the earth, and this is knowledge we derive both from the world we inhabit and the Word of God, which directly tells us so. The Word of God is Truth, and without it, nothing else can be.
 
I am glad that Jordan Peterson is beginning to see the Truth of God and I hope this means that he is saved.
 
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

The Book of Genesis covers a great deal of people throughout a great deal of time. From the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve in and out of the Garden, Cain killing Abel, Seth being born to Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, Abraham being the forefather of the faith, his son Isaac’s long-awaited birth, Jacob and Esau’s rivalry, ending with Joseph’s story of betrayal and hardship until reaching the second highest position in the land of Egypt and helping his family move there.
 
The Book of Exodus, in turn, covers the story of Moses, for the most part. And in the beginning of Exodus, starting from verse 6, we read the following:
 
“Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.”
 
“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, ‘Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.’ Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves.”
 
“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and let the male children live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’ So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, ‘Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.’”
 
The reason I bring this story up, at least up to this point, is because much like Pharaoh, it seems as though Chinese President Xi Jinping is afraid of the surge in numbers of people of faith.
 
According to The UK Express, who quote Director of Strategic Research at Christian charity, Open Doors, Dr Ron Boyd-MacMillan, “China’s premier is becoming increasingly concerned by the size of the Church – currently estimated at 97 million people.”
 
Dr. Boyd-MacMillan claimed that the size of the church in China is expected to increase rapidly in the next couple of decades, reaching 300 million people by 2030 at the rate it’s currently growing (roughly 7-8%), thus “creating a group big enough to challenge Xi’s government.”
 
He said: “We think the evidence as to why the Chinese Church is so targeted, is that the leaders are scared of the size of the Church, and the growth of the Church. And if it grows, at the rate that it has done since 1980, and that’s about between seven and eight percent a year, then you’re looking at a group of people that will be 300 million strong, nearly by 2030. And, you know, the Chinese leadership, they really do long term planning, I mean, their economic plan goes to 2049, so this bothers them. Because I think if the Church continues to grow like that, then they’ll have to share power.”
 
The UK Express also shared an infographic depicting China’s military power (which they claim is accurate as of November 2020, so the numbers are probably a bit higher at this point, assuming that the CCP would even share these numbers to begin with), as you can see below.

As you can see, it depicts a few notable things. First, the population, which currently stands at 1,384,688,986. The fact that, already, the Chinese Church stands at 97 million is rather bad for Xi, as they make up 7% of the total population, and as I have already mentioned in prior articles, it only takes 3.5% of the population actively protesting peacefully to drive meaningful change. With the Chinese population growing at approximately 0.3% per year, the 300 million Christians would be roughly 20% of the Chinese population by the year 2030.
 
These are not insignificant numbers, whatsoever. Second, they show China’s military power in terms of military personnel and vehicles.
 
2.7 million total personnel is not insignificant, unfortunately, as the U.S.’s total military personnel is roughly 2.4 million. Those numbers may not be too far apart, but during times of war, the personnel tend to go up (following 9/11, the military saw a surge in enlistment, and that was just to hunt down illiterate savages sleeping in sand), and there are roughly a billion Chinese compared to 330 million Americans. Not that every single resident of the countries would be fighting, of course, but I’m largely talking about total possible manpower.
 
We do, however, have an advantage in terms of vehicles, most likely. I don’t know the estimated number of military vehicles we have available, but I know for sure that we have more than just two aircraft carriers unlike China.
 
But these numbers are only interesting to know in the event of war against China, which isn’t the main point of this article. Like I mentioned before, the Chinese Church makes up roughly 7% of the Chinese population and that number is increasing year-over-year at a rate of seven or eight percent.
 
With Christians being the natural enemy of communism and communists, it’s no surprise, really, that Xi would feel threatened by such a massive surge in faith every year. Particularly as he has tried his darndest to oppress and Chinafy the Church, trying to turn people’s faith away from God and towards himself.
 
But as Exodus 1:12 says, “But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad.”
 
My comparison to the Book of Exodus isn’t to say that we might one day see a Christian exodus from China. What I’m trying to do is draw comparisons between Xi and Pharaoh, the conditions of their targets in their own times, and what faith in God will do for the believers. God delivered the Jews out of Egypt. He might do the same for Christians in China, or He might even lead Christians in China to rule the future former-communist country.
 
Can you imagine how delightful it would be for China to become a Christian nation, run as a Republic, and faithful to God? Instead of an economic and political rival, we would have an economic and political friend (assuming Christianity further grows in the U.S. as well and defeats the Satanic Left).
 
I don’t know the plans that God has for His people in China, but knowing His goodness, I know that He will deliver good things to them, even if there is hardship along the way.
 
I pray that the latter option happens, and Christians begin ruling China, dealing a deathblow to communism worldwide.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

In a recent video released by PragerU (below), psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar made the argument that children should be exposed to God and religion, even if the parents aren’t believers themselves.
 
She explains that, as a therapist, she is often asked questions about anxiety and depression and why they are so prevalent in children and teenagers. She argues that one explanation for it, which is “almost surely the most neglected” is declining interest in God and religion in the U.S.
 
Komisar cited a Harvard study which shows that children who attended a religious service at least once a week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” This weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
 
Regardless of the psychological benefits of weekly church attendance, there has been a 20% decrease in weekly religious attendance in the last 20 years. And in 2018, the American Family Survey showed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
 
Komisar commented on those surveys saying: “From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend. Nihilism – the belief in nothing – is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”

As a result, Komisar argues that parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if those parents are themselves unbelievers.
 
Generally, I agree with Komisar and also believe that people ought to come to faith, in part, because of the moral and psychological benefits it would bring.
 
However, my one issue with JUST making this argument is that it’s no different from arguing that religion is a crutch for people to deal with their daily lives. This is an argument I often hear from unbelievers “Oh, you just believe in this pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you can’t properly deal with the daily stresses of life. It’s just a crutch for you and those who don’t believe in this unscientific nonsense have more mental/intellectual maturity.”
 
Obviously, such an argument is false and rooted in a misconception of religion, but it’s arguments like the one Komisar gives that sort of fuel that. Again, I am not disagreeing with Komisar on this, and I even understand why she’s making this argument. She’s a therapist, after all, and she wants to help people be better off psychologically and recognizes the mental benefits of religion, belief in God and regular church attendance.
 
I’m not taking away those benefits because they are, of course, very much there. If you’re going to teach your child something, better it be that God has them in the palm of His hands than that the world is on fire and they might not even get to see their adulthood.
 
However, to only argue in favor of religion and God in this manner is to lower them to crutches to deal with the truth of life. It ignores the very fact that there can BE no life in the first place without God.
 
I’m not saying that that’s the argument Komisar is making whatsoever, or that she believes that this is the only purpose of belief in God, but it does have the issue of giving those unbelievers credence they neither have nor deserve.
 
Parents should 100% expose their children to God and religion even if they don’t believe themselves. Komisar actually makes a fantastic point in the video that there are parents who say “I want to give my children the ability to choose what they believe themselves rather than force anything on them.” If that’s the case, then, Komisar argues, shouldn’t you be more willing to expose your children to God and religion? How else are they to make a free and informed decision about what to believe if they aren’t exposed to such options?
 
And that is a great argument. For parents to say that they don’t want to force a religion on their children, and so don’t expose their children to religion, because they want their children to choose for themselves is like parents saying they don’t want to force children to eat a particular type of food, so they don’t expose their children to that food, because they want them to choose for themselves.
 
Ultimately, they are accomplishing the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim to want. They are making that choice for their children to NOT be part of a religion by depriving them of the experience of it.
 
After all, who chooses to be part of something they have no idea what it is about? “I don’t want to tell my child what he should do when he grows up, so I’m not letting him do anything in any field so he can choose for himself what he wants to do.” That is a dumbass argument when put that way, and yet, it’s the standard operating procedure for some parents when it comes to their child’s beliefs?
 
If you expose children to nothing, they will know nothing and believe in nothing.
 
But at any rate, like I said, I generally agree with what Komisar is saying about God, religion and the psychological benefits of both. They definitely are true, and the benefits can be seen in anyone who is actually faithful to God.
 
God teaches us a myriad of things throughout the Bible, from that which He commands of us in the Ten Commandments to what Jesus said was the most important commandment “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind,” as well as another commandment which He said was equally as important: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
 
We are told by God, who is the author of morality (among all other things except for evil and sin), what is good, what is profitable, what must be done and how, all for His glory and His kingdom.
 
I am reminded of a guest speaker I once had for my Religion class in high school who was an atheist but argued in favor of the teachings of the Bible because they were, according to him, “good moral teachings.”
 
They certainly are, and had I known then what I know now, I would have made the same argument I had been making earlier in this article. God is, indeed, moral as He is the author of morality. We are taught that there is no sin in Him and He is not the author of sin and evil. So the speaker wasn’t technically wrong in that regard. However, the Bible is FAR more than just a guide on morality and God and religion are far more than just safe havens from the stresses and harshness of life.
 
The Bible is God’s very word to us. It depicts the history of not just the Jewish and Christian faiths, but of the entire world and its existence. It shows us who the author of the universe is, with the declaration of the very first words of the Bible being: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” showing the reader that before everything was, He IS. He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, omnipresent, and the Creator and originator of all.
 
He created the heavens and the earth, all living things on it, above it and underneath it, including mankind. Mankind then was deceived by Satan into rebelling against God, and thusly was punished, along with Satan, for such rebellion, taking away their eternal life and their place in paradise.
 
Following that, mankind continued to rebel against God, sinning and sinning and being evil by nature, which was once not the case but the punishment by God for their original sin of disbelief in God’s word that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die.
 
Despite this continual, natural sinfulness and rebellion, God sent His only begotten Son to, among other things, die on the cross for the sins of the people who believe in Him, that they should not perish but have eternal life. God had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do that, and would be perfectly justified to have sent no savior at all and punish all mankind for its sins. And yet, He did send us a savior, because He is a kind and merciful God who loves His children.
 
When you understand this about God, one cannot possibly relegate Him to being a mere comforter (though He is a comforter) of the downtrodden, anxious and depressed. One cannot relegate His word as mere good guidance for how to live a moral life. One cannot relegate belief in Him and His word to just a crutch for dealing with life.
 
Again, I don’t think that’s what Komisar was saying, at all, and don’t think she believes this is all religion and God are good for. And again, I agree with almost everything she said in that PragerU video, with my biggest gripe being that at one point, she said “[B]etter for kids to use their imagination constructing something positive – such as a God who cares about us – than the dark, nihilistic idea that there’s no creator and protector…” which is problematic because it implies that God is someone we create ourselves, according to our desires. God cannot be created by people and a “god” created by evil people will permit evil deeds. I understand what she was trying to say here, but it’s rather problematic how she put it together.
 
God is a comforter and a protector, yes, but it’s far more beneficial and important to know that He is the Master of the Universe and not a single thing that happens happens without His permission. Even Satan, in all his evil deeds, is held back by God in his wickedness.
 
God created the world. God controls the world. God created you. God is in control of your life and has you in the palm of His hands. More than just a good psychological answer to the stresses of life, He is the Lord Almighty, in whom people can find comfort. And they can find said comfort precisely because of who He is, not because of who we want Him to be.
 
Yes, parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if they don’t themselves believe, and even if they only do it for the psychological benefits of it, because it can lead to a calling from the Lord to Him. But it is also very important to understand WHY God is even a good source of comfort to begin with and that begins with understanding WHO He is.
 
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

There have been plenty of stories surrounding this year’s Olympics which either irritate or utterly disgust anyone who is of sane mind, from men competing against women to Olympians representing the U.S. protesting when the national anthem is played, etc.
 
And these stories have been circulated plenty, giving these undeserving bastards more recognition than they deserve. While such horrid situations ought to be discussed in the negative light they deserve, I would like to focus on the exact opposite today: an Olympian who represents her country well and who is not only happy to do so, but considers it a blessing and gives all the glory of her victory to God.
 
Sydney McLaughlin is an Olympic hurdler, who this past week managed to edge out her teammate Dalilah Muhammad and beat her own world record in the 400-meter hurdles to win the gold medal for her country, with Muhammad taking home the silver (and also breaking the previous world record but being a bit slower than McLaughlin).
 
The 21-year-old Olympian spoke to the press following the race, where she said “Just trusting the process, giving the glory to God… I’m just really grateful to represent my country and to have had this opportunity,” also mentioning the “hard work and dedication” which went into the season.
 
McLaughlin was also able to see footage of her Catholic high school celebrating her victory.
 
She also made sure to give thanks to God for her victory on Instagram as well:
 
“The face of a woman who is in awe of God. I could feel this meet was going to be something special… but MAN. Weeks like these are some of the hardest in a track athletes life. The mental strain of preparing for the rounds in order to solidify your spot is heavy enough. But the amount of weight the Lord took off my shoulders, is the reason I could run so freely yesterday. My faith was being tested all week. From bad practices, to 3 false start delays, to a meet delay. I just kept hearing God say, ‘Just focus on me.’ It was the best race plan I could have ever assembled. I no longer run for self-recognition, but to reflect His perfect will that is already set in stone. I don’t deserve anything. But by grace, through faith, Jesus has given me everything. Records come and go. The glory of God is eternal. Thank you, Father. Congrats to everyone who made the team, as well as my awesome competitors!! Let’s go represent the USA the best way we know how!”
 
It’s not often you get to hear competitors speaking like this. Usually, we focus on the stories like the ones I mentioned in the beginning, where people make asses of themselves and somehow take pride in it, or generally push for some Leftist, anti-God agenda. And while, again, it’s worthwhile to talk about those things in the negative manner which they deserve, it’s equally as important to talk about situations like these in the positive manner which they deserve.
 
Sydney is proud to represent her country and more importantly is proud to be a Christian. She gives the glory to God, not herself, for her ability to break her own world record and bring home the gold. She admits that she deserves nothing, that by grace, through faith, Jesus has given her everything, and that mortal things like records will come and go but God’s glory is eternal.
 
These are things which we should be celebrating and promoting, perhaps more so than the other stories. Yet, it will be talked about far less for a number of reasons. Namely, the fake news media loves to promote the filth that the other Olympians are pushing like anthem protests and men cheating by competing against women, so it’s only natural that these other stories get talked about more.
 
But it’s still true that stories like McLaughlin’s ought to be shared and talked about far more, giving her the recognition she deserves for being willing to stand up for what is right and righteous in a culture which has long hated what is right and righteous.
 
She expressly is grateful to represent her country, while other Olympians simply take the opportunity to bash it and embarrass it on the world stage. She thanks God and gives all the glory and credit to Him, while other Olympians will be self-absorbed and talk about “their” accomplishments as if they were solely theirs and might even hijack the stage to talk about the disgraceful filth the fake news media and elites would love to hear.
 
McLaughlin stands apart from these competitors, and I am certainly glad to see that. She is the type of competitor we ought to be talking about more and celebrating. She represents her country very well, as opposed to the other Olympians who only represent the minority of the elites who push their Leftist agenda.
 
Not only does she do a fantastic job as an Olympian, but also as a Christian, witnessing to the whole world of the wonder of God. Of course, she doesn’t have a whole lot of time to witness, but she takes whatever opportunity she can get to do so, and I am certain that this is utterly pleasing to the Lord.
 
God bless Sydney McLaughlin.
 
Luke 2:14
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

Last Thursday, Occupier Joe Biden announced a mandate for millions of federal workers to either receive a “lifesaving vaccine” (which is nothing of the sort) or follow strict and stringent “safety” protocols such as wearing masks “no matter where they are”, get tested once or twice a week, social distance and “generally not be allowed to travel for work.”
 
The same standard seemingly applies to all federal contractors. Biden also seemingly based this decision on the DOJ’s prior “ruling” that Chinese coronavirus vaccination mandates were “legal,” which as I said in the last article, means absolute squat since it just means that the DOJ won’t prosecute states and businesses which mandate vaccinations but state AGs and private citizens can still sue and nothing at all changes following that “ruling.”
 
Funny enough, Biden, in that Thursday announcement, also iterated the need for even the VACCINATED to wear masks, following the CDC’s updated “guidance” on mask-wearing (thereby giving even LESS of a reason to get vaccinated, since they had been trying to give special rights to the vaccinated, including not having to wear masks, though both mandates are utterly unconstitutional).
 
What’s more, Biden, in a bid to encourage people to get vaccinated, insisted time and time again that “99%” of people falling ill of the virus and dying are unvaccinated. Small tangent, but if the vaccines are safe and effective, why isn’t that number 100%? We’ve only had the vaccine for half a year, let’s say, so it stands to reason that most people who have died of the virus are those who were not vaccinated (which is extremely misleading, and would be like saying that Rome existed more than 70 years ago, which is technically true but again, misleading. Of course most people who have died of the Chinese coronavirus are unvaccinated, we’ve only had the vaccine until recently. And again, why is the number not 100%?).
 
In any case, I, for one, couldn’t care less about whether or not federal workers are mandated to get the vaccine or have to follow strict “safety” protocols. They are the swamp, after all. So why would I care about their suffering?
 
Furthermore, this vaccine mandate (threat, really) from the Biden administration brings with it unintended consequences which are actually pretty advantageous for Americans: it inadvertently drains the swamp.
 
Think of it like this: We all know of the effects of the vaccines. I have, for the last half a year, written many articles which highlight the ineffectiveness of the vaccines in fighting the Chinese coronavirus and downright show the active HARM which they pose to those who get the vaccine. I’ve even used data from the CDC itself, through its VAERS system, to showcase the, at this point, tens of thousands of people who have died of the vaccines (and as a reminder, the VAERS system only reports less than 1% of cases, so it’s possible, at this point, that over a million have died from the vaccines).
 
And undoubtedly, many federal workers have taken the vaccines as well. While it’s almost certain that not everyone who takes the vaccine will die from it, it can still cause other severe side-effects which can sideline people. Let’s pretend, then, that at least 50% of federal workers have taken the vaccine and another 10% intend to take the vaccine but haven’t quite yet come around to doing so for one reason or another. So 60%, to be conservative, since many labor unions working with or for the federal government have protested against the mandate, and many will refuse to take the vaccine for religious or health reasons.
 
Anthony Fauci had said that 40 to 50% of the CDC had yet to take the vaccine (arguably, he didn’t say they refused, but it’s the CDC and I highly doubt they would have trouble getting vaccinated), so a 60% estimate of federal workers getting the vaccine isn’t out of line.
 
That means that a LOT of those people could see severe side-effects as a result of getting the vaccine. They might get seriously sick and have to quit/retire or might outright die, depending on the circumstances. But the other 40% who might refuse to get the vaccine would likely face extreme pressure from their peers (the Left’s authoritarian tendencies will backfire here) to get the vaccine and might choose to quit or retire as well from the extreme pressure that the Left tends to put on people to act in the manner which they wish.
 
Either way, this kind of pressure from the Biden administration to either get the vaccine (which could seriously harm or kill them) or be subjected to stringent protocols (and face further pressure from others) would inadvertently lead to some amount of swamp draining.
 
Either the workers get the vaccine and die/be forced into retirement or they don’t get the vaccine but face enough pressure from the administration and their peers to want to quit/retire (or get the vaccine, which brings us back to that first option). Such a mandate on federal workers will likely lead to inadvertently draining the swamp, and from one of the biggest swamp rats of all.
 
Certainly, God works in mysterious ways. Even when we think there is no possibility for something to happen, such as draining the swamp in this case because a swamp lifer stole the election, God makes a way for it to be possible.
 
I am reminded of the story of the widow’s oil, where a woman comes to Elisha in dire need, as her husband recently died and a creditor was coming to take the woman’s two sons to be his slaves. Elisha asked the woman what she had in her house and she replied “Your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil,” 2 Kings 4:2. Elisha then told her to go to all her neighbors and gather empty vessels and pour that oil into all those vessels. And that’s exactly what she did, with just one jar of oil, she managed to fill all the vessels she had with her with that oil by the power of God. Thanks to that, she was able to pay off her debt.
 
The story is rather short and doesn’t go into a whole lot of detail, but I’m certain the woman at least thought to herself “how can this lone jar of oil be enough to pay off my debt? If I thought it would be enough, I wouldn’t have had to come to Elisha to begin with.” In essence, I think she doubted there would have been a way for her to use that oil to pay for her debt (seeing as she said she "has nothing... but a jar of oil"), but God made a way for exactly that to happen.
 
Similarly, I believe that’s what God is doing with this situation as well. He is using a swamp rat to drain the swamp, likely without the rat’s knowledge.
 
Even if I overestimate what this will do to the swamp in terms of draining it, that this will definitely lead to some people in federal government to be forced out is more than I was expecting going into this illegitimate administration.
 
With Biden successfully stealing the election, I fully expected the swamp to recover from the four years of Trump, but frankly, this could do more damage to them than even Trump did. All under the “leadership” of one of their own.
 
God certainly is poetic with irony.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

I don’t know if the following comments by Don Lemon are the dumbest things he has ever said – they certainly are up there – but they definitely are the easiest to disprove out of just about anything.
 
You see, recently, the Catholic Church stated once again the same view that Christendom has had on homosexuality since the founding of the church 2,000 years ago that homosexuality is a sin, that same-sex unions cannot be blessed, and that God does not bless sin.
 
Because the far-Left hates the Church and all Christians, they attacked the Catholic Church for upholding the views it has always had and which very clearly come from the Bible, which is the very Word of God.
 
But CNN host Don Lemon had perhaps the dumbest take in all of this.
 
Lemon appeared on ABC’s “The View”, and responded to something co-host Meghan McCain said: “You got engaged to your fiancé, Tim, in 2019, and this morning, we learned that the Vatican has said that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since ‘God cannot bless sin.’ They go on to say that this does not imply a judgment on persons, but I want to know, do you think this sends a damaging message and how do you feel about that given that obviously you are engaged and going to get married?”
 
Quick sidebar, let no one ever again say that any member of the McCain family is a conservative. Asking “do you think this sends a damaging message” alludes to the idea that it is a damaging message to say that same-sex unions cannot be blessed and that God can’t bless sin. No true conservative will stand against God or His Word. That she, undoubtedly, voted for Biden ought to tell people she isn’t a conservative.
 
In any case, Lemon proceeded to share the following gem:
 
“Well, I think there are – listen, I respect people’s right to believe in whatever they want to believe in their God, but if you believe in something that hurts another person or does not give someone the same rights or freedoms – not necessarily under the Constitution because this is under God – I think that that’s wrong and I think that the Catholic Church and many other churches really need to reexamine themselves and their teachings because that is not what God is about. God is not about hindering people or even judging people.”
 
Let’s go over this one point at a time, shall we?
 
First, it’s not about individuals believing in whatever they want to believe in God. God’s Word is clear in the Bible, particularly on this matter: homosexuality is a sin. It is an abomination to Him. It is evil. If someone believes in a god that thinks homosexuality is permissible, they are not believing in the Lord, but a fictitious god conjured up from their own imagination.
 
God is not someone’s imaginary friend who will approve of just about everything that they do. God is the Ruler of the Universe and all creation. His own morals stand above the supposed “morality” of those whom He has dominion over. If your own morality stands in clear and direct contradiction to God’s, you are in the wrong. There is no other way around that.
 
Secondly, who in the world ever said that God is one who allows people to have the freedom to do whatever they wanted? Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden because they did what they wanted (an oversimplification of events, granted, but still) and disobeyed God in the process. The one rule they had in paradise was not to eat the fruit which comes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They distrusted God, which was the original sin, believing in the word of the serpent that they would not die if they ate of the fruit, and this distrustfulness and disobedience cost them eternal life in paradise.
 
People defying God is literally what doomed humanity, so what makes anyone think that God just allows people to do whatever they want? Furthermore, if God doesn’t restrict people in this way regarding homosexuality, then it would naturally follow that all sins and egregious acts are permissible under God, right? Since God doesn’t hinder people’s “rights” and “freedoms”, right?
 
So the raping of women would be permissible, the slaughtering of children would be permissible, the kidnapping and torture and murder of humans would be permissible, the abuse of animals would be permissible, the defiling of young girls would be permissible, the theft of other people’s belongings would be permissible, the Holocaust would be permissible, Holodomor would be permissible, the killing of 500 million people (roughly 100 million born people and 400 million unborn babies) killed by the Chinese communists would be permissible, and every sin and heinous act of man would be permissible by God.
 
So why stop at homosexuality? If someone wanted to kill and maim Don Lemon, they would be allowed to because “God is not about hindering” the “rights” and “freedoms” of people. God forbid that someone would even think to do such a horrible thing, but hey, Don Lemon seems to believe that God is okay with such things, so why would he himself not be okay with that?
 
And let no one come to me arguing that “Jesus set us free” and that that means we are free to do whatever we want. Anyone who makes that argument is seriously ignorant of what that means. Jesus sets us free, indeed. What does that mean? First, by “us”, it means Christians. Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone’s sins. It’s not like He is buying everyone a round of drinks on Him, allowing us to do whatever we want following His crucifixion. “Us” means those who follow Him, not everyone in the world. Secondly and lastly on this point, He has set us free from the PUNISHMENT of sin, not free to perform sin.
 
Until we are saved by the Lord through Christ Jesus, we are slaves of sin. That is what is meant when I say that humanity was doomed following the original sin of Adam and Eve. Their sin is passed on to every single human on Earth, with the exception of Jesus Himself, being the Son of God and being divine. He was born free from sin, obviously. But everyone else is born in sin and we will die in sin if we do not repent. We are set free from that sin by Jesus Christ, not automatically, but through repentance of our sins and in trusting in Him as our Lord and Savior.
 
But this setting us free does not mean giving us license to sin to our heart’s content. Yes, Jesus saved the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned to death when He called on whomever was free of sin to cast the first stone, but He then told the woman to “sin no more,” so He definitely did not find her actions permissible. Forgivable, yes, upon repentance, but not permissible altogether.
 
Lastly, the idea that God is not about “judging people” is one of the most ignorant and easily refutable takes I have ever heard, and that’s saying something.
 
You can literally Google “bible verses about God’s judgement” and one of the first links will include 100 verses about that very topic.
 
For example, the few that I will share with you:
 
2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
 
1 Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
 
Revelation 20:11-15: “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
 
John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
 
Romans 14:12: “So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
 
And Don Lemon ought to be particularly cautious given the following verse:
 
Matthew 12:36-37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
 
The fact that there even is a concept of sin indicates wrong-doing. That there is a concept of wrong-doing indicates a concept of righteousness. That there are both concepts indicates that there is reward for the righteous and punishment for the evil doer. That there is a concept of punishment for the evil doer indicates a judgment of the evil doer.
 
The idea that God doesn’t judge people is one of the most misguided and foolish things I have heard said about the character of God.
 
Eventually, Lemon even had the audacity to lecture people of faith:
 
“So I would say to the Pope and the Vatican and all Christians or Catholics or whomever, whatever religion you believe out, you happen to belong to out there, ‘Go out and meet people and try to understand people and do what the Bible and Jesus actually said if you believe in Jesus, and that is to love your fellow man and judge not let ye be not (sic) judged. So instead of having the pew hinder you, having the church hinder you, instead of being segregated in the church or among yourselves, go out and have a barbecue and meet people and start breaking bread with people and getting to know them…”
 
This article is already quite long, so I will keep my analysis as short as possible.
 
First, that he misspoke in the “judge not lest ye be judged” thing kind of already indicates that he does not understand what the Bible and Jesus actually said whatsoever.
 
Second, this is not about men judging other men, but about GOD’S judgment, which he claimed He is not about, despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary. The Vatican isn’t the ones judging same-sex unions, they are merely restating the MILLENNIA OLD BELIEF in what GOD HIMSELF says about homosexuality. God judges homosexuality because it is a sin, and He does not bless sin, so He does not bless same-sex unions.
 
Third, “love your fellow man” does not mean we tolerate the evil of man. A parent loves his child, but what love is shown when they tolerate evil acts of the child? A parent who approves or even just tolerates evil acts by their child holds no love for them at all. Love includes reproaching and rebuking of evil. God loves His creation and brings even great sinners to Him.
 
David committed adultery and murder, which God punished, but out of love, not hatred. God rebuked David and brought him back to Him.
 
Moses committed murder against an Egyptian guard which led him to be on the lam for 40 years, yet God brought him to Him and made him a leader of what would eventually be known as God’s chosen people.
 
Abraham committed adultery by bedding his servant, Hagar, because he was impatient when it came to God’s promise of a child and that he would become a father to many nations. Still, God brought him back to Him and delivered him his promised son.
 
Saul of Tarsus hunted down those who believed in the Lord Jesus with the help of Roman soldiers, sending countless believers to their deaths, and God rebuked him, punished him with blindness, but redeemed him upon his repentance of his sins, becoming one of the most important figures in early Christendom.
 
We all sin, but there is no excuse for it. We are forgiven of it if and only if we ask for such forgiveness. No person holds love for his fellow man if he tolerates or approves of that man’s evil.
 
Finally, and to finish things off, Don Lemon has no right to judge believers (as he was doing in that segment, whether or not he realizes it) given his own sins and evils, claiming he somehow knows God’s character better than Christians do, and then go on to encourage Christians to step away from God and towards Man. Whether or not he realizes that that’s what he was doing, it is. Encouraging people to get out of the churches and go to a barbecue to “get to know people” is a roundabout way of saying “leave the Lord and come join us Man in our world.”
 
Satan would love for nothing more than for believers to fall for such deceit, abandoning God and His teachings and His ways in exchange for the teachings of Man.
 
Shame on Don Lemon for doing the devil’s bidding in encouraging believers to abandon God, as subtly or as unwittingly as he did. And that last bit was not the only example of him doing this either, as he "encouraged" the Church and Christians to "reexamine themselves and their teachings." Doing so would be to follow the teachings of Man, not of God.
 
James 4:4
“You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

We all know Pope Francis is not a Christian, as his rhetoric in a manner of subjects demonstrates that he is more of a humanist who believes man to have power or have potential to wield power similar to God. Why else would he believe that mankind could, without the use of nuclear weapons, destroy the planet that God has created?
 
And he does not appear to be in any way repentant of this anti-Christian idiocy or the falsehoods which he spreads. In a recently released book, the pope recounts the story of the Great Flood during the time of Noah and claims that rising temperatures and melting glaciers might cause a second Great Flood.
 
Interestingly, Pope Francis is not ignorant of the significance of the biblical Great Flood. He writes: “The Bible says that the flood is the result of God’s wrath. It is a figure of God’s wrath, who according to the Bible has seen too many bad things and decides to obliterate humanity. The biblical flood, according to experts, is a mythical tale. The flood is a historical tale, archaeologists say, because they found traces of a flood in their excavations… A great flood, perhaps due to a rise in temperature and the melting of the glaciers, is what will happen now if we continue along the same path.”
 
“God’s wrath is directed against injustice, against Satan,” he continues. “It is directed against evil, not that which derives from human weakness, but evil of Satanic inspiration: the corruption generated by Satan… God unleashed his wrath, but he saw a righteous one, took him and saved him. The story of Noah demonstrates that God’s wrath is also salvific.”
 
There are some things which Pope Francis gets right here, but plenty that he does not.
 
What he gets right is in the citing of archaeologists in that the Great Flood is a historical event. We know this as the very Word of God tells us, let alone the empirical evidence that there is of it. What he also gets right is that God’s wrath is directed at injustice, against Satan. It is directed at evil. At the corruption that Satan brought in, though the actions of Adam and Eve also led to that corruption, as they distrusted and disobeyed God.
 
However, that he recognizes that the Great Flood came as a result of God’s wrath against the great sins and evils of 99.9% of the world’s population at the time is what confuses me about why he is conflating God’s wrath and the flood that He delivered with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about “flooding” that has been predicted for decades now and which never came.
 
He KNOWS the reason for the Great Flood, so why would he claim there would be a second one? Is it that he believes the creation is as powerful as the creator? Perhaps, but I think it’s a different reason: he legitimately believes that not only does humanity have the ability to destroy the earth in this way (though at no point has there been any evidence that we are causing any sort of change in the climate) but that God considers those who are “killing” the planet to be aligned with Satan and those who are trying to “save” it, namely people like him, are on the side of God and will be saved from His wrath.
 
The God that Pope Francis believes in is not the God that exists. Such a god is one of Pope Francis’ own imagination. He is attributing characteristics to his god and turning him into some idol. God’s wrath does not go to those who are uncaring of the planet or who are on one side or the other on the environmental issues. His wrath is not delivered for the reasons of environmentalism. It is delivered for the reason of sin – the reason of evil. This is something even Pope Francis admits, but it goes to show how warped his mind is.
 
He actually believes that those who are not “saving” the planet are evil and will receive God’s wrath as a result of that evil.
 
Now, this warped mentality should not be particularly surprising, considering the guy is a socialist (and therefore, a supporter of an ideology which has killed hundreds of millions of people, so I wonder how he weighs on the scales of evil). Leftists have, for a long time, used God to push for their own agendas.
 
The Left during the 19th century pushed that God was in favor of slavery because slavery was prominent in the Bible. What they failed to recognize is that the kind of slavery the Bible largely refers to is indentured servitude. There is, of course, other kinds of slavery, as the Jews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years, but that was slavery done to God’s chosen people, not done by them. Jacob was a “slave” – servant – of Laban for a total of 14 years, servitude which was done in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage (and, of course, he ended up marrying Leah first after seven years of servitude before serving another seven for Rachel).
 
So the idea that God was on the side of the Democrats and the Left in the 19th century regarding forced slave labor which dehumanized an entire group of people is as erroneous as the idea that God is on the side of the Democrats and the Left in the 21st century regarding the climate of the planet, which He made to be DYNAMIC and ever-changing.
 
As I have said many times in articles of this nature, the things which the Left blames for climate change cannot be the cause for similar periods of warmth found at other points in time. Neither the Roman nor the Medieval Warming Periods can be explained to have occurred because too many people were driving cars, too many people were flying planes, too many people were using their air conditioners, or that too many people were capitalist (and this one is particularly asinine as communist China is a top polluter in the world).
 
We have observed the dynamism of the planet's climate which God created. To claim that mankind is responsible for the same kind of climate that the planet has seen across millennia is unfound, but to claim that God is wrathful against those who acknowledge this truth about our planet is downright heretical.
 
God is not a puppet for Pope Francis to use as he pleases, claiming that this thing and that thing is wrong and that those who do it will face God’s wrath. Granted, he’s a Catholic, so it’s not surprising that such behavior is present, as the Catholic Church has long made up sins that are nowhere to be found in the Bible (looking at you, Seven Deadly Sins, though to an extent, as it is sinful to be lustful). But just because the Catholic Church has pretty much always done this doesn’t mean that the Pope is right in doing it himself.
 
It is not a sin to be against the liars and deceivers who scar children for life with untruthful claims about the state of the planet and our involvement in it. It is not a sin to be against those who would seek to take advantage of the woes and fears they create in people to take their possessions and give everything to the government, which they treat as God. It is not a sin to be against those who would kill an innocent child, in and out of the womb, because of an “overpopulation” problem that doesn’t exist or because such fools believe that more people will lead to the planet being in a worse condition.
 
You know what are sins? Killing people, stealing from people, lying to people for your own personal gain, and attributing to man the things that come from God. And Pope Francis better be careful with that last one, as it borders on being the unpardonable sin. I don’t think he’s committed that particular sin here, but he is dangerously close to it, in my opinion.
 
Mankind cannot do what God can do. It cannot cause a second Great Flood. Even with lesser floods, mankind cannot cause entire cities to flood through the methods that Francis and other Leftists believe it can.
 
For decades, they claimed coastal cities like Miami and Los Angeles would be inundated and uninhabitable. This is a prediction the Left has made since NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO. As I pointed out in a rather old article now, a Missouri newspaper had an article titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.” That article was written in 1932, 89 years ago. And still, these Leftists are giving the same “warnings.”
 
Along with that, not one of their predictions over the last century regarding climate change has come true, from acid rains to global cooling in the 70’s to global warming in decades after to melting glaciers to great floods to droughts to super powerful and frequent hurricanes. Not ONE of those things ever came about like these “experts” predicted. They continue to lie to people and those most pushing these warnings tend to enrich themselves from the fear that they spread.
 
How, exactly, is God on their side? How, exactly, are such people spared from the wrath of God?
 
Liars, killers and deceivers. That’s what these people are and that’s what Pope Francis sides with, no matter what rationalizations or justifications appealing to the character of God (that he places in Him himself) he makes regarding this issue.
 
Pope Francis better repent of these sins which he continuously commits.
 
Romans 1:18
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

I will freely admit that that might be a cliched title, but it isn’t very often that I speak of matters so personal to me. I usually talk about what idiotic things Leftists said or pushed, or about what great things Trump would do as President, or generally tried my hand at some apologetics, defending the Christian faith from those who foolishly attack it at their own peril.
 
However, with the recent event of America’s Anchorman Rush Limbaugh passing away due to complications with cancer (screw cancer, by the way, and I really want to say something stronger but I feel like that wouldn’t honor Rush), I feel like I should take some time away from focusing on other current events such as the disaster that is the illegitimate Biden administration to just discuss Rush and what he meant to me personally.
 
I, unfortunately, never got to meet Rush, so it’s not like I can share some personal anecdote about the man of something we did together. But I listened to him as often as I could, particularly as I got older and began to pay attention to politics a little bit more.
 
I don’t exactly know what qualifies one to be a “Rush baby”, whether it means to have had his radio program on since I was literally a baby or at least a toddler, but I can call myself a “Rush teen”, if you will.
 
I began listening to him, admittedly, against my will. That’s not to say that I did not like Rush or that I was a mad liberal with vitriol and hatred in his heart. I was just a 14-year-old kid who recently moved to a new state and awaiting the movers to have all our stuff, there were few things to do apart from listening to the radio. At the time, I was hardly paying much attention to politics.
 
I remember occasionally watching Fox News (back when it was good and personalities like Bill O’Reilly were present) with my parents over the years, but again, could hardly care about the politics. I remember when Obama was elected president in 2008 and how disappointed my parents were about it. So I knew who was President of the United States by the time my family and I moved to the country, but again, being a kid, I hardly cared about that.
 
As a result, there was not much I cared about with regard to what Rush was talking about. I remember that Rush was railing on Obama and the Democrats as basically trying to be “Santa Claus” and just trying to win elections by giving out free stuff to Americans.
 
Keep in mind that this was around the time that Obamacare was being talked about the most.
 
But, again, as a 14-year-old kid whose interests lied primarily in playing Call of Duty or other games on his Xbox, the topics of discussion were barely important to me. But I kept listening, on and off, and began to pay more attention to politics as time went on, particularly around the time of the 2012 election.
 
Though I ashamedly supported Romney back then, a large part of the reason why is because, while even then I knew he wasn’t exactly the most conservative option (back then, I liked Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman and Rick Perry far more than Romney), he would likely still have made for a better president than what Obama was. In some ways, I still think that to be true. I think Romney would have made the economy better, because Republicans tend to be able to fix the economies that Democrats wreck. And this was a sentiment that Rush shared.
 
He backed Romney and supported him because, even if he was far from his first choice, he was a better option than Obama. He made the same rationalizations and justifications for supporting McCain, who was also not Rush’s first choice.
 
So I got invested a decent bit in politics back then, certainly more than what I previously had but obviously nowhere near as much as I do now. As a result, I began to pay more attention to what Rush was saying as well. It certainly helped that my dad would often put him on the radio when he picked me up from school, at least for the short amount of time that I wouldn’t take the bus home.
 
And so, my journey went as follows: I became a Republican in large part because my parents were Republicans and taught me right from wrong (for the most part, at least, as even they were still on that same journey as me). They, themselves, became Republicans because they were in finance, and what Republicans propose economically are what always made sense for them. Then, we became conservatives.
 
Funny enough, this happened in part because of Obama. Early in his administration, quite literally on his third day in office, Obama had reportedly told Republican leaders who were invited to the White House to “quit listening to Rush Limbaugh.” “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”
 
For all the “unifying” that Obama was seemingly trying to do there, he went on to say to a Republican critic: “I won. I will trump you on that.”
 
Clearly, Obama was as full of crap back then as we always knew he was. But at any rate, that’s not what I want to focus on. Following that moment in the White House, Fox News reported on it, and my mom asked: “Who’s Rush Limbaugh?”
 
She went on to look him up and that is how my parents (and eventually I) started listening to El Rushbo. So thank you, Obama. You are at least part of the reason as to why my family and I are as conservative as we are today.
 
And so, we became Republicans, and then through Rush, we became conservatives. After that is when my mom and I became Christians, some time later, at least.
 
And that’s all well and good, but you might be asking how that relates to what Rush means to me. Well, I think it was a little important to share this backstory of mine, detailing the journey of my conservative politics. It is because of Rush Limbaugh that I am a conservative, particularly as much of one as I am.
 
He (as well as my parents who also deserve credit for this) taught me not what to think but how to think. To analyze things with a critical eye. It’s why I analyze what Leftists say and can discern what they mean or imply from them.
 
I attended the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and that is a school from which one does not graduate. Even now, with Rush’s passing, there is plenty that we can learn and know from him.
 
It’s because of him that I have been writing these articles for the last four years. I even sought a career in radio so that I could become “the next Rush Limbaugh” before I realized that even speaking for half an hour became tiring for my throat. Not to mention I think I can convey messages more clearly in the written form, particularly as this mode of communication affords me more time to think about what I want to say and how to say it.
 
Of course, now, I no longer want to be “the next Rush Limbaugh” not merely because I hardly think I’m cut out for radio, but also because there simply cannot be a “next Rush Limbaugh”. When they made him, they broke the mold, as those who listened to Rush through Rush 24/7 understand. I cannot aspire to be someone I’m not, or the “next” someone I’m not. I can only be the best version of myself and I think that’s what Rush would want of me.
 
Kathryn Limbaugh opened Rush’s show on the 17th to convey the sad news of Rush’s passing. She pointed out how “Rush will forever be the greatest of all time. Rush was an extraordinary man, a gentle giant – brilliant, quick witted, genuinely kind, extremely generous, passionate, courageous, and the hardest working person I know…”
 
“He was polite and respectful to everyone he met. Even most recently when he was not feeling well in the hospital, he was so appreciative to every single doctor and nurse and custodian and first responder. He never wanted to put anyone out, and always thanked them profusely for their help.”
 
Rush was someone who unabashedly and unapologetically loved his country, our military, flag, Constitution, and Founding Fathers. It’s because of that love that he wanted to defeat the Left, who bear the exact opposite feelings about all those things.
 
He’s someone who touched the hearts of tens of millions of people every day for 32 years. You can tell what awesome things he did in his life by the way people reacted to his death. Those who loved him and love this country mourned, while those who loathed him and loathe this country vilely celebrated. He was loved by all the right people and hated by all the right people. I saw it as a badge of honor for Rush that the Left reacted the way that they did. That Rush had enemies means he stood up for something, and particularly, for the right thing.
 
That he was loved by God is infinitely more important than that he was hated by the Left and Satan. He now rests with the Lord, free from the evil cancer that damaged his body, and probably striking up a conversation with Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, to name a few, about how silly the Left is for believing they are headed for victory.
 
Rush was a big part of my life and a big part of how I have shaped my life and my beliefs. I didn’t always agree with Rush, though the times I disagreed were as few and far between as the times in which he was wrong. That is to say, I would disagree with him 0.2% of the time, agreeing with him the other 99.8%.
 
Though he and I never met, as I said earlier, he was my brother in Christ. I am young, so I don’t plan on meeting my Savior in heaven any time soon, and by extension, America’s Anchorman. But what I will try to do from now on will be the same as what I hopefully have been doing for the past four years: write truthful articles that convey why the Left is evil and ought to be defeated and destroyed. This is what Rush, in his own way, did for over 30 years. With talent on loan from God, and by the Grace of God, he did all he could with the time that the Lord gave him, and I hope to do the same.
 
God bless Rush Limbaugh and may his soul rest in peace, as we all know he is.
 
Romans 14:8
“For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”

As Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.” Those who call evil things “good” and “righteous” are heathens as are those who call good things “evil” or “dangerous”. Often, those people are one and the same: those who are not Christians, and at best, only profess faith as opposed to possessing it.
 
That is the kind of person that is involved with Washington National Cathedral, which invited a guest preacher named Max Lucado who believes in the biblical point that homosexuality is a sin (because it is) and abhorrent to God (because it is).
 
A petition was written and addressed to the church, calling Lucado’s correct theology “dangerous” and urged the church to disinvite him:
 
“Lucado’s teachings and preaching inflicts active harm on LGBTQ people. To cite one example, in 2004 he wrote of his fears that homosexuality would lead to ‘legalized incest’ and likened same-sex marriage to incest and bestiality.”
 
“Fear-mongering and dehumanizing messages from powerful speakers like Lucado have been used to justify rollbacks of LGBTQ rights and to exclude LGBTQ people from civil protections and sacred rites. To our knowledge, Lucado has not publicly renounced these views.”
 
The petition also appealed to the fact that National Cathedral houses the remains of a gay college student who was brutally beaten and murdered in 1998, all but actively charging Lucado with holding a theology which was “responsible” for that tragedy:
 
“Matthew Shepard’s remains were entrusted to the care of this cathedral. Inviting a man who preaches the kind of dangerous theology that promotes oppression of and violence toward the LGBTQ community does not honor that trust nor serve his memory.”
 
“If Lucado wishes to use this opportunity to renounce his hateful views, this is not the appropriate forum or context. This is not an opportunity for easy healing or ‘bringing together’, as though the question of the full belovedness of LGBTQ people is a simple argument or difference of opinion. Lucado has inflicted serious harm. If healing is to take place, Lucado has much work to do before it can begin.”
 
It’s bemusing how often these whiny people cry “violence” at any opinion which disagrees with their own. At no point has any Christian called for what happened to Matthew Shepard to happen to other gay people. Unless in self-defense or in war, killing just isn’t right. But that isn’t to say that Shepard was anything close to a saint because people who embrace their sin cannot be considered saints (saints, by the way, are those whom are saved, not merely those whom the Catholic church gives the title of “Saint”).
 
The only dangerous theology is the one which twists God’s word, because such a theology is Satan’s, not God’s.
 
Romans 1:18-32 says:
 
“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.”
 
God, through the apostle Paul, reaffirms what had been found elsewhere in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that God considers such immoral sexual acts to be sinful and lead to spiritual death. And don’t tell me “it’s not lust, or just about sex, it’s also about love”, because no, it isn’t. Love is not defined by men; it is defined by God. God loves His children, He loves His Church. Love is not lust. There is passion in love, for sure, including sexual passion. Sex within marriage is not detestable to God. God made us to feel pleasure in sex because sex, in and of itself, isn’t a bad thing. What is a bad thing is sex outside of marriage and sex between and amongst people who are of the same sex, same familial line, or different species.
 
Homosexuality is a sin and an abhorrent thing to God. To declare such a position a “dangerous theology” is, in itself, dangerous theology. In fact, it's not theology, because theology is the study of God. It is what it claims other things are, which is why I began this article with that Isaiah verse. They are calling God’s theology and doctrine “dangerous” because of the truth which it speaks: homosexuality is a sin.
 
But now, you may be thinking why it is that I titled this article the way that I did. That petition was clearly written by either members of the congregation or the community in general, definitely not people who have decision-making power regarding who gets to speak and preach at the church. So, then, why am I saying that Satan runs the churches (or at least this one)? Well, here’s the thing, despite the fact that the church is holding firm on their decision to allow Lucado to preach, they themselves are guilty of propelling pro-LGBT and anti-biblical theology.
 
That they reportedly house the remains of a gay college student showcases that they side with men as opposed to God.
 
In a response to the petition, Dean Randy Hollerith said:
 
“As you know, this Cathedral has long been a beacon for LGBTQ inclusion, and we believe in that because we believe the Gospel calls us to nothing short of full embrace and inclusion. That said, I understand why Max’s earlier statements on LGBTQ issues would cause concern, and I want you to know that I share your concerns. As an ally of the LGBTQ community myself, it grieves me when churches or religion are used as weapons against God’s LGBTQ children.”

Yeah, the guy is a blasphemer, undoubtedly.
 
First of all, the Gospel does NOT call for “full embrace and inclusion.” Read those verses in Romans 1 again to see that. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “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.”
 
We are not called to embrace evil or include evil in our midst. And make no mistake, homosexuality is evil. It is a sin, after all, which is evil and leads to death. We are forgiven of our sins when we repent of them, but they are sins nonetheless and those whom embrace sin will die by them.
 
God doesn’t include unrighteous people into His kingdom, and among those unrighteous, He counts homosexuals. Why, then, would we be inclusive of homosexuality? I don’t think we should kill or actively harm them, but we don’t have to do them any favors either.
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly, GOD DOES NOT HAVE LGBTQ CHILDREN! That ticked me off the most, even more than the nonsensical petition.
 
The children of God are those whom He adopted into His heavenly family. Those whom have received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are counted among the children of God, siblings of Christ. God washes away sin; He doesn’t include it with us when we are saved. So God doesn’t have LGBT children.
 
Not everyone is a child of God. I used to mistakenly think the opposite, but that was wrong. There is no universal brotherhood of man because for that to be the case, there would have to be a universal childhood of man under God. Not everyone whom God creates does He save, and so, not everyone whom God allows to be alive does He consider His child.
 
So to repeat myself once more, God doesn’t have LGBT children. He has children who used to be gay, as He has children who used to be idolaters, sexually immoral, murderers, etc., but whom have repented of their sins, received Christ as their Lord and Savior, and their sins were washed away.
 
Returning to that passage in 1 Corinthians, the immediate passage that follows is 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
 
Sin is a death sentence, but repentance leads to salvation. We are called to not tolerate evil, and you can see clearly what leads to tolerance of evil: men pretending to be women, entering women’s sports and destroying all competition, demanding that they be allowed to use women’s restrooms and forcing women to be extremely uncomfortable and fear sexual molestation or rape. Supposed Catholic preachers who are often scandalously found to have raped or molested young children. And worst of all, the straying of entire people away from the Word of God and the Light of the Lord.
 
Satan was defeated nearly 2,000 years ago, but he is dragging as many people as he can with him. Well, perhaps that’s not how I should phrase it, because that would be to assume that people’s default setting would be of salvation, which it’s not. But there is a difference between the weak and the wicked, and we can see who the wicked are: those who assert, with no uncertain words, that the Bible’s teachings are a “dangerous theology”, and those who consider themselves to be an ally of LGBT people, which is to be an ally of evil.
 
May God curse the people who assert that homosexuality is a virtue and not a sin, as well as those who call themselves allies of this evil, and may He open the eyes of the weak who are being led into the darkness by the evil one.
 
After all, even I used to think, erroneously, that homosexuality was okay and that gay marriage was fine. That was, obviously, before I became a Christian, but God opened my eyes to the Truth.
 
Jude 1:7
“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”