I have surprisingly mixed feelings about this entire thing. However, before I get into why that is, it is important to understand the context of the situation. Usually, if I see college professors slamming anything on the LEFT and not something on the Right, that comes as a massive surprise. However, you will soon understand why I am not 100% positive about this whole thing.
First, allow me to explain some context. This article comes from a different article written on Campus Reform titled: “Yale prof: Communism is a ‘religion’ with ‘sloppy theology’”. In this article, the writer explains that “panelists at Princeton University condemned communism on Tuesday (last week), likening it to a ‘religion’ with ‘extremely sloppy theology’ and honing in on its ‘inhuman’ nature.”
The article mentions the name of the panel: “Consequences of an Idea: Assessing 100 Years of Communism” and notes the name of the three panelists. First, there’s Carlos Eire, a Yale history and religious studies professor and an immigrant from Cuba. Then, there’s Sergiu Klainerman, a Princeton math professor and immigrant from Romania, a socialist country. Finally, there’s Skidmore College political science professor Flagg Taylor.
In this panel, Eire made the case that Communism is “damn close, if not exactly the same as a religion,” with “orthodoxy and heresy.”
Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence… It is also an extremely sloppy theology that does not base its observations on human behavior.”
He argued that “human beings are incapable of pure altruism, of sharing goods equally. There is never any true sharing. It is impossible.”
According to Campus Reform: “The religious studies professor noted that Christian monasticism also involved property sharing, but that monastic history is one ‘of failure, of corruption, and reform.’ He granted that it yielded some success, arguing that this was because sharing was voluntary.”
Then, Eire claims that “historically, it has been proven that communism can work, sometimes, to some extent, always with some reform. But it always requires an oligarchy of some sort.”
Campus Reform continues by writing: “The Yale professor also argued that it is only viable in small communities, noting several failed historical attempts by Christian monastics or other religious leaders to extend monastic sharing to wider communities.”
Eire insisted that “it is possible to speak of communism… as a religion” that is “governed by bad theology.”
Later in the panel, Taylor argues that it is not enough to label Communism as totalitarian, suggesting that it is better to label it as an “ideocracy” where “ideology is not just one of four or five important features” but that ideology is “the most important feature.” “In this account, a totalitarian regime becomes totalitarian precisely because it is ideological.”
Taylor argues that Communism is founded on “organized and systematic lying”, differing from “ordinary falsehood.” He argues that “ordinary falsehood” “stays in touch with the truth and knowingly distorts the truth” as opposed to an “ideological lie” which “seeks to impose a pseudo-reality upon reality. It does not depart from reality so much as [it] completely ignores reality and… it seeks to disrupt our normal access to reality.”
Taylor concludes the panel by pointing out some trends present in our daily lives that are reminiscent of communist ideocracies, such as the “hyper-bureaucratization of life”, the “persistence of perfectionism” and a “prevalent culture of activism”. He describes the latter two as a form of fanaticism that is “always certain that the enacting of a certain program will bring an end to societal dysfunction and injustice.”
This sort of fanaticism, Taylor says, “is not driven primarily by unbridled passion, but rather is the result of an intellectual error, which should recall ideologies like revolutionary socialism” and the disastrous results that they bring.
Now, this was a lot to cover, but I think it can be fairly obvious why I have some level of issue with all of this. While I do agree that Communism is basically like a religion at this point, as I have time and time again mocked the Left for their religious-like belief of climate change, it is important to understand just what kind of religion we are talking about here and why Christianity does not really belong in this sort of categorization that the professors use to define something as religious.
Carlos Eire, the Yale professor, made the argument that Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. And while that is true, this comes after comparing Communism with religion. Now, as a Christian, the first religion that comes to mind when someone talks about religion in general is Christianity. But this argument does not work for Christianity in and of itself.
Christianity is not “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. There is nothing in science today that goes as far as to disprove or really even challenge the existence of God. While there are people out there that use science as a weapon against Christianity and the notion of a living, eternal, self-existent God who is the Creator of the Universe, no scientific evidence really disproves God.
Even the theory of evolution does not disprove God. It basically suggests the universe started with a singular cell that evolved and got to where we are today. But it does not challenge the idea of a God because it does not answer the question “where did that cell come from?” If evolution is, indeed, how we got to this point (and I believe in some level of evolution, but within species. Meaning a species evolving to adapt better to its surroundings, not evolving into a different species altogether) then how did that first life cell come to be? What did it evolve from? Surely, not from something that was previously not alive. Not if it’s the first alive thing ever.
What I mean is this: I used to not be alive, but I was a sperm cell within my father that eventually made contact with my mother’s egg cells. There were living cells before I was alive (ironically, the Left will still somehow say that we are not alive inside the womb but are alive before we even get there as living cells). But with the first cell, what came before it? Nothing surely. But then, how did it get there in the first place?
Even if you believe the Universe was always here, as in it had no beginning (which is ludicrous), you cannot make the same argument for life on Earth. Earth was not always here. Life was not always here. So how did life get here? How did it develop from absolute nothingness? If there was ever a time when there was nothing, absent of an external force, what would there be today? Nothing!
So even the “best” tools for the Left in countering the existence of God do not actually counter the existence of God. There is no empirical, scientific, sociological evidence that points away from the Truth claims of the Bible. So in Eire’s comparison between Communism and religion, his argument does not actually work for Christianity. However, it does work magnificently well for Communism, which is meant to be the overall point. Not to mention he’s talking about religion in general and not Christianity in particular.
Now, he does also mention Christian Monasticism. For context, Monasticism is a religious way of life where one renounces worldly pursuits in order to devote oneself entirely to spiritual work. Basically, think of Catholic priests (just not the ones that molest kids or argue that there is climate change or that there should be gay priests or anything that adamantly goes against the Bible, as that basically stops being Monasticism altogether).
Eire critiques Christian Monasticism and history as being one “of failure, of corruption, and reform.”
Now, unfortunately, I am not a theologian, so I cannot necessarily argue against this completely. My understanding, at least of the Catholic Church, which tends to be Monastic, is that it has (and arguably is right now) corrupt and very different from what it should be. And I’m sorry to anyone who is Catholic here, but to say the Catholic Church is perfect is to be naïve.
The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of the Pope. They believe the Pope is never wrong and incapable of being wrong. That, of course, is ridiculous. Of course the Pope can be wrong. He’s HUMAN! To say that the Pope cannot be wrong is to elevate the Pope to God’s level of omniscience. That is blasphemy and wholly unchristian.
The Catholic Church also believes in praying to saints, such as Saint Peter, and even to the Virgin Mary, that they may ask God to help the person praying to them. Praying to anyone but God is idolatry and there is no other way to label it. It’s not like asking someone else to pray for you. You don’t get down on your knees and bow your head to ask someone else to pray for you. Asking for the Virgin Mary to pray for you, while you yourself are in a praying position and are doing this to a statue of the Virgin Mary is to elevate the Virgin Mary to God’s level. Again, that’s blasphemy as well as idolatry.
I won’t spend too long criticizing what I don’t like about the Catholic Church, but it is important to note there are issues with it. Just as there are issues with every other denomination. There is no perfect denomination of Christianity. The church of Christ is, currently, being run by humans. Humans who make mistakes. Humans who are not omniscient. Humans who, by nature, are evil and can only be righteous by the good grace of the Lord.
So I won’t argue that there are no mistakes or issues within the denominations of Christianity or within Monasticism of Christianity. But there is a MASSIVE difference between calling Christian Monasticism a failure and corrupt and calling Christianity itself a failure and corrupt. I want to make it entirely clear, of course, that Eire is talking about Monasticism in particular. And I, not being a theologian and not having great understanding of this, will not necessarily argue against the particular claim. I just wanted to make the difference clear. He is criticizing Monasticism, not Christianity itself.
Now, I feel I should wrap this up so as to not make this article too long. In conclusion, I am glad there are college professors, particularly Ivy League college professors, who understand the horrors of Communism and its fundamental fanaticism that is devoid of knowledge and understanding.
And while Communism, and many things within Communism, can be considered to be like religion or an actual religion, where the government is God (I have mentioned multiple times that the Left wants to replace God with government. If that’s not basically making Communism a religion, I don’t know what would), I feel it particularly necessary to explain that the argument Eire used to describe religion or Communism as being like a religion does not exactly work with Christianity as science does not really suggest there is no God. In fact, it does the opposite.
Science has shown us to be extremely complex creatures living in an extremely complex reality. To say that everything that has happened up to now, including our very existence, is a matter of random chance is to reach for the bottom of the barrel in trying to deny God’s existence. The mathematical likelihood, or chance, of everything that has happened to be replicated is virtually impossible. Not only that, chance in and of itself doesn't have the power to do anything - it's just a mathematical concept to calculate probability. Chance is not a thing. When you toss a coin, you have 50/50 chance of it landing on tails - it'll depend on many factors: distance from the floor, force applied, objects it hits on its way down, etc. But chance is not a factor - it's a probability and it has no influence on the actual result. And yet, here we are. How? Well, I think we all know.
But aside from that, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are at least some college professors who still view Communism in a bad light. Of course, two of them actually had to experience communism (or at least socialism) to understand how bad it is, but still.
“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that contains the week’s articles compiled into a single e-mail. Unlike communists of today, I won’t lie to you and say that something is free when it really isn’t at the end of the day. When I say it’s free, that means it’s 100% free all the time. Today, tomorrow, next week, last Thursday. It’s always free to do this.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Another day, another idiotic college professor misunderstanding the Bible entirely (either willingly or unwillingly, not sure which is worse). Jesus Christ never condemned the rich. He warned them that their love of money could destroy them, but He never condemned the fact they were wealthy to begin with. But we'll get to that momentarily.
Now, this article is a little bit weird because, unlike pretty much every other time, I do not know exactly what the professor argues. Let me explain.
DePaul University political science Professor David Lay Williams held a lecture this month. However, it does not look as though the event was filmed or otherwise documented. All I could find about it is DePaul’s Events list detailing the Mess Hall lecture with a relatively brief description.
So unlike in other articles, I can’t directly challenge the arguments that the professor makes because I don’t have access to those arguments. All I have is the description of the event. However, the description does offer some things for me to explain.
So instead of creating a counterargument to someone’s argument, I will try my best at defending the concept of being wealthy and amassing wealth, why Jesus warned (not condemned, don't get them confused) the rich of His time and why He wouldn't condemn every rich person of today’s world.
Let’s begin by looking at the lecture’s description:
“’Inequality is the root of all social evil,’ Pope Francis has warned. A look at his sources suggests he could hardly argue otherwise. So contends DePaul Political Science Professor David Lay Williams, who investigates the predatory lending practices and extremes of economic inequality in Jesus’ Roman Palestine in a chapter of his forthcoming book on the development of economic inequality in Western political thought. Reimagining some of Jesus’ parables and examining passages from the Gospels and the Book of James, Williams discovered a Jesus intent on reducing the corrosive effects of wealth, greed, and inequality and condemning those with great fortunes as unworthy inhabitants for the kingdom of God. Williams contrasts him with Paul’s attitude toward pious Christians with wealth.”
Right off the bat, I can see I would have a hard time of being convinced by anything the professor says (which I can’t access, as I’ve said). Quoting Pope Francis to make a Christian argument is like quoting Bill Clinton to make an argument against raping women. It just doesn’t work. Beyond the fact that the current Il Papa is a staunch believer in climate change and that mankind has something to do with it, the current reports about his willingness to aid pedophilic priests and his overall comments saying that those who are calling out this perverted evil are of the devil himself all tell me he’s as far from a Christian as one can get while calling himself one.
I had always had an issue with the Pope calling himself the head of the Catholic Church, since only Jesus should be considered the head of the Church, but this particular Pope has to be one of the worst of all time.
When the Dalai Lama is more adamant about Europe belonging to Europeans instead of Muslims than the HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, there is a problem. So to base an entire lecture (as far as I know) off of a quote from Pope LuciFrancis, that is going to raise some flags on my end.
Now, regarding other things such as “investigating predatory lending practices”, I won’t argue much there. For as long as humanity has had some form of currency, given our evil nature, humanity has sought to cheat and steal off of someone else.
The very first deal we know of is God’s deal with Adam and Eve. Now, it’s not exactly an official deal signed with a document, but it was a deal that had God allowing Adam and Eve enjoying the Garden of Eden in exchange for not eating out of the forbidden tree. And I think we all know what happened.
Later on in the Old Testament, time and time again, whenever a deal between two people was made, there were certain rules such as having people there as witnesses to oversee the making of the deal, like when Boaz bought Elimelech’s belongings and redeemed Ruth in Ruth chapter 4. Or when Abraham made a deal with Ephron the Hittite to buy the land where he would bury Sarah in Genesis chapter 23.
So there were legitimate deals that were held and there were deals where someone would finesse another person, hence why the Old Testament, which is the Word of God, insisted in having rules and traditions to ensure a deal was kept between two parties.
Now, the lecture description mentions what the Gospels and the Book of James say about the rich. And it makes sense, with verses such as Luke 18:25: “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” or James 5:1-6: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.”
Or even Luke 12:33: “Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.”
But here’s the thing: at the time of Christ, when He would warn the rich, the rich were either those who worked in the government, those who were friends with people in the government, or land-owners with farms and such. The way the first two got rich was by taxing others. If you get rich off of taxing others, chances are good that you are stealing from them.
Now, one can make the case that taxation is theft and the IRS should be abolished along with taxes. I won’t necessarily make that argument myself as it doesn’t really belong in this article and I personally do not entirely agree with it, but that’s for another time.
The point is that Jesus warned the rich because they're very likely to rely on themselves for everything, including salvation. That's why He said it's more difficult for them to enter the Kingdom of God - He never said it was impossible. Just more difficult given the wealthy's self-reliance.
The rich, as I stated earlier, can also include land-owners, not just taxmen. As the aforementioned James 5:1-6 passage says “the wages of the laborers… which you kept back by fraud… you have condemned and murdered the righteous person…” I don’t know exactly who James is talking to here. The letter he wrote was addressed to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion, or the Diaspora, which is the dispersion of the Jews throughout events in the entire Bible. That is my best explanation of the Dispersion not being a theologian myself.
But James clearly is writing letters to twelve tribes and no one in particular. But he writes this with the accusation of the rich people defrauding their servants and “condemning and murdering the righteous person”. I do not know exactly who the “righteous person” is in this context. What I understand is that people who convert to Christianity are deemed righteous thereafter, even while remaining sinners (though they are righteous not out of their own work but by God's grace).
However, that’s not the most important part in this context. James is mentioning, or at least accusing, that the rich he’s referring to have been dishonest with the wages that belong to their laborers. It’s performing such an evil act that is the focal point of this passage. Not the fact that they're rich.
There are other passages in the Bible that speak against the rich and the amassing of wealth, but not because being rich or amassing wealth is in itself a bad thing, but because a love of money, which is sinful, can often stem from it.
1 Timothy 6:10 says: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
You see, it’s not being rich in itself that is bad or evil. It’s the love of money that CAN come from it (but does not have to). For example, Abraham was a pretty rich guy. He was able to buy multiple plots of land and many farm animals like sheep, oxen, etc. Yet, God never condemned his wealth. He never urged Abraham to give up his Earthly possessions.
Why? Because Abraham was faithful to the Lord, though he would stumble such as when he slept with and impregnated Hagar. But Abraham stayed faithful to the Lord, trusted in Him and followed His commandments as best as he could.
So I have to ask: would Jesus condemn the rich of today? Depends on which ones. I will not name any Democrats, as that is obvious why He would condemn them, the least of the reasons which is that they are rich. But people like, say, Bill Gates? I don’t know. Gates didn’t steal anyone’s money. He earned it himself. As far as I know, he didn’t mistreat anyone while he was head of Microsoft. Now, he does have other issues with regard to his entrance into heaven, given that he is an atheist, but I am absolutely sure being rich, with the way he became rich, is something Jesus would not condemn. His Atheism, if he dies without converting, will condemn him. But not his wealth.
Again, Christ never condemns people because of their money - in fact, it's God who blesses us with money and possessions. He condemns unbelievers only - those who love money more than Jesus. It’s the love of money that gets people into trouble. It’s their crooked behavior that gets them into trouble. It’s not the actual money count that gets people into trouble.
So while Christ did indeed warn the rich, as shown throughout the Bible, His issue is not the actual wealth of someone, but rather how they get it, what they do with it and in whom those people trust: their money or the Lord.
The first commandment reads: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The love of money, the worship of money, is basically idolatry. And it being the first commandment, we can see that it’s a pretty important one to God.
“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for He has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles compiled into a single email, and it gives you easy access to our online store. And since it’s entirely free, that means I don’t make money off of it. I’m safe from the Lord’s wrath… for now.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Moving away from the hot button issue of the Kavanaugh accusation, I feel it is important to share some feel-happy news in a world that constantly tries to take away your joy. (Not that the Kavanaugh accusation has me down, knowing that it won’t derail Kavanaugh, but the Left tries their best to take away people’s joy).
The feel-happy news, if you really want to call it news, is that recently Chris Pratt had an interview with The Associated Press in which he discussed a number of things ranging from fitness to who his actor role model is (Tom Cruise, surprisingly, but mostly because Cruise does his own stunts), and the topic we’re focusing on particularly: his unabashedly Christian faith.
The interviewer for the AP said the following: “At recent award show appearances, you went out on stage and talked publicly about your faith. Is it an especially important time to do that?”
Personally, I find the phrasing of the question intriguing. He’s not asking if Pratt thinks it’s especially important for him to do it. He’s asking if it’s especially important to do that in our current time. I do not know who the AP interviewer is, but they might have a good eye for what is happening in today’s world and the impact of Christianity.
Alas, I likely will never know if the interviewer is a Christian him/herself and that that was the reason for phrasing the question in that manner, so let’s move on to Pratt’s answer.
“I don’t know that I am so much more motivated by where the world is or if it’s just what I’m feeling called to do right now. I think it’s a combination of both things… That kind of a message, it might not be for everybody. But there is a group of people for whom that message is designed. And nothing fills my soul more than to think that maybe some kid watching that would say, ‘Hey, I’ve been thinking about that. I’ve been thinking about praying. Let me try that out.’ That’s like the only way I feel like I can repay what has essentially been a giant gift in my life.”
A good answer, in my opinion. Obviously, it becomes increasingly important to spread the Word of God in a world that is adamantly rebellious against Him, a world that defies Him at every given opportunity and treads closer and closer towards the devil.
The Kavanaugh accusation alone is proof of this. The Left seeks to destroy him using a letter detailing, with flawed accuracy, events that happened sometime 30 years ago somewhere in the Northeast United States. The accuser brings up no evidence to support her claim, no witnesses to corroborate her claims, has refused to attend a hearing where her story would be heard, and when she agrees, she sets up “fairness” terms where likely she gets to decide what is fair and what isn’t, and demands the FBI investigate an issue they have twice said would not investigate and an issue that really falls under local law enforcement jurisdiction, not federal, not to mention an issue that would have come up during the vetting of Kavanaugh soon after his nomination if it had happened.
And even with all of these facts, the Left, the media and Hollywood celebrities are treating that one letter to Feinstein as gospel and the truth, seeking to destroy the career and livelihood of someone just because he poses a threat to the evil Supreme Court decision of 1973: Roe v. Wade.
Not to get too much into the actual topic, since everyone and their grandmother is talking about it, but it does offer a good example of a world that is getting closer to the devil. A world where the life of a man can be ruined by flimsy accusations that no one should believe, but somehow many do.
But the other part that is important is that spreading the Word of God and thanking the Lord at every given opportunity is something we are called to do no matter what the circumstance. Pratt does well in answering his question by saying it’s a combination of the state of the world today and the fact that he’s called to do it.
Then, the AP interviewer asks the following question: “Does it feel like a risk sometimes in Hollywood?”
To which Pratt answers: “No, not at all… I think that there’s this narrative that exists out there that Hollywood is anti-Christian or anti-religious, but it’s just not the case. They are kind of not anti-anything. They are kind of pro- whatever is authentic to you. And I like that. Because it’s authentic for me to be pro-Christian, pro-Jesus. That’s my thing. I like it. And I’ve never had anyone try to shame me, to my face. Maybe they go say it behind my back. But if that’s the case, go ahead. You can say whatever you want about me – to my face or behind my back. I’m not going to change.”
Interesting answer he gives here.
And there might be SOME truth to what he says. At this point in time, just about everyone, particularly people in Hollywood, knows that Pratt is a Christian. Despite this, he still gets to have lead roles in huge blockbuster movies such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World. He is enjoying pretty great success thus far, even with people knowing he’s a Christian.
However, that is where my agreement with his response ends. I’m not a Hollywood star like Pratt, so it’s not like I have inside knowledge on what happens there regarding this topic, but I know for a fact that Leftist Hollywood is anti-something. They are unabashedly anti-Trump.
Beyond that, they tend to be anti-God as well. Pratt may never have had someone try to shame him over his faith in the past, but we know very well that Hollywood, both in their movies and in their celebrities’ actions, are anti-God.
No, they may not necessarily come out every single day and shout that they hate God, but their actions show these types of feelings.
In their movies, time and time again, they try to shove Leftist messages down people’s throats. Messages such as “there is nothing wrong with being gay” (homosexuality is a sin. Sin is wrong.) or “it’s okay if you have an abortion, it’s just a blob of cells” or “all cops are racists”, etc.
That’s not necessarily every single movie, but we often see these messages in the big screen.
And that’s just mentioning the actual films. This is without mentioning the undoubtedly millions of dollars these Hollywood celebrities donate to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and others that are all inherently evil.
I’ve already explained why the #MeToo movement is evil in a previous article, so no need to repeat myself here. It’s fairly obvious why Planned Parenthood is evil and have written a multitude of articles detailing how and why they are evil. And with BLM, the reason it’s evil is because its leaders try to make every case where a cop shoots a black person strictly about race. Yeah, there are occasions when the officer definitely was out of line in killing someone who was not a threat. Such cases exist, but for the most part, cops shoot to kill someone who is an obvious threat to their lives or the lives of others.
So while Chris Pratt may have never been subject of persecution regarding his faith (at least in person. Social media might be a different story), it’s not entirely accurate to say that Hollywood people aren’t anti-anything. Everyone has an opinion, and they have the right to said opinion.
Hollywood Leftists have the right to promote filth, to support evil organizations, etc. But to say they are not anti-anything is not entirely accurate. These actions show me the kind of people they are: people who do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who do not follow His commandments, who do not obey the Lord and go out of their way to defy Him. The actions that I have listed above are proof of this.
Again, they might not come right out and say they hate God, but their actions speak louder than anything they could say.
In any case, I want to focus more on the fact that, regardless of what Pratt thinks is the way Hollywood acts (again, I can’t claim to have more knowledge than him), he himself will not be deterred in his faith in Christ.
That’s what I believe is the most important thing to take away from this and the most important thing to keep in mind. It’s great that Pratt is so open about his faith in Christ and wants to share it with the world. It’s great that he thanks God as often as possible and seemingly, that he prays whenever he can. Beyond all other opinions we may have on this world: whether or not Trump is a good President, whether or not socialism works (it doesn’t and that’s a fact), whether or not we are being finessed by other countries regarding trade deals, what is important is having faith in the Lord.
That’s why I don’t mind that Pratt is not political. That he doesn’t necessarily show favoritism towards one candidate or another. Aside from the fact that he’d effectively be committing career suicide if he were to say he’s a conservative (though I imagine people gather that, knowing he’s a Christian), he knows that it’s more important to focus on matters of Heaven than of Earth. That the Lord comes first and everything else comes last.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles composed in a single email, and it also gives you easy access to our online store. And unlike the “socialists” at the New York Times and other publications that ask (or force) you to pay for a subscription, our publication is 100% free.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
About a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how it’s ridiculous for Leftists to claim they are siding with God or that they are doing God’s work whenever they support or do the work of the devil. Though I did not put it quite that way, that’s basically the message of the article. Well, I guess we can consider this article a sort of sequel to that one.
Recently, Chelsea Clinton had an interview on SiriusXM with a panel of fellow feminazis. One of the hosts, Jess McIntosh, asked the former First Daughter: “How do you keep going in the hopes that your daughter doesn’t have to have this fight?” Referring to the fight to allow women to kill their unborn.
Chelsea replied: “Every day, I make the moral choice to be optimistic that my efforts and my energies, particularly when I’m fortunate enough to be in a partnership with fellow travelers, hopefully will make a difference.”
“And when I think about all of the statistics – that are painful – of what women are confronting today in our country, and what even more women confronted pre-Roe and how many women died and how many more women were maimed because of unsafe abortion practices, we just can’t go back to that.”
I will just say that I’m not surprised that Chelsea Clinton continues to use long-since debunked rhetoric and “statistics” to further her cause. As I mentioned in my article titled: “Feinstein Tried To Corner Kavanaugh On Roe Question And Failed”, according to a 1972 CDC report, the maternal death rate from abortions was only 39 in the United States. This means that, in the year before Roe v. Wade happened, only 39 women died due to having an abortion.
Going further, even two pro-choice people, Dr. Mary Calderone (former PP medical director) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL) admitted that the numbers they were using were fictitious.
Dr. Mary Calderone wrote in 1960: “About 90% of all illegal abortions are being done by physicians… whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions which comprise approximately 8%...”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted his organization (NARAL)’s numbers of between 5 and 10 thousand women dying every year from back-alley abortions “were totally false… but in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted…”
So right off the bat, we can call out Chelsea on her b.s., knowing full-well that not too many women died due to abortions before 1973. It also reinforces that article’s point that it seems that abortion is to blame for women’s deaths or complications, not the legality of them.
Of course, that’s now where we’re ending this. I’ve yet to get to the most egregious part of the interview. Chelsea continued talking (and she seemingly gets her speaking skills from her mother), saying: “[outlawing abortion is] unconscionable to me, and also, I’m sure that this will unleash another wave of hate in my direction, but as a deeply religious person, it’s also unchristian to me.”
I have quite a few things to say about this, only a handful of which I allow myself to write in an article so as to not be vulgar.
First of all, I’m surprised she didn’t use this psychic power of precognition to let her mother know that she would lose the 2016 presidential election.
Second of all, what’s truly unchristian is supporting the cause of allowing women to end the life of their own children under the guise of “women’s healthcare”. Not only is this willful support of an evil practice that is literally meant to end a life, but it’s also deception in fooling people into supporting this. As egregious and disgusting as the Left is, they are conscious enough to recognize that only a handful of really messed up people would ever openly support the idea of killing children.
The Left always tried to dehumanize an unborn child, saying that “it’s not a kid, it’s a fetus.” Well, using all-knowing Google to do some basic research, fetus literally means: “an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.” Would you like to know the synonyms? They are: embryo (though technically that’s the gestation period that comes before being a fetus and after being a zygote) and UNBORN BABY/CHILD!
Fetus literally means child. So not a single heartless or ignorant Leftist can possibly tell me a fetus is not human or not a child. Even the Leftist overlords at Google disagree with such a point.
Not that it matters too much to the Left. Not many people would sign on to the idea of killing a child in the womb, so they have to disguise it to make it not look so horrible, so they say it’s “women’s healthcare”, even though healthcare is meant to do the opposite of killing someone. They say it’s “women’s liberation”, going by the insinuation that having a child is somehow comparable to being a slave.
There is nothing Christian about the killing of the innocent. For Chelsea to call herself “deeply religious”, it must mean something entirely different from what she thinks. No religion in the world, as far as I know, supports abortion. Even Islam does not support it and even forbids it unless the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger.
Which reminds me, how does pregnancy put someone’s life in danger? I could maybe understand if it made complications for someone who is extremely skinny or overall unhealthy, but most women, when they have children, tend to be relatively healthy. I don’t think I’ve seen any cases in which a woman HAD to terminate a pregnancy due to her life being at risk. I’ve only seen cases of women WILLINGLY ENDING THE PREGANCY BECAUSE IT’S INCONVENIENT!
Regardless, I’ll return to the main point. Willingly killing a child inside the womb is not something religious people tend to support. So either Chelsea belongs to a secret religious group that supports abortion (the Left religiously supports the idea that people affect the climate, so I guess that’s not too far-fetched) or she’s lying about being religious. She’s certainly lying about outlawing abortion being unchristian.
Now, the interview did not end there. Since Chelsea mentioned that she would get some flak over these comments, the interview went into attack mode, attacking the pro-life crowd.
First, Chelsea tried to make herself the victim by saying she has been “compared to slave owners and Nazis” over her positions on abortion. Well, considering Planned Parenthood is basically the legacy of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, a Nazi scientific institution focusing on anthropology, human heredity and eugenics, and that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was basically Nazi Germany’s version of Planned Parenthood, only with the pretense that they were making the human race “better”, I’d say the comparisons are fairly accurate.
One of the panelists also directly attacked pro-life people, calling us “anti-choice” instead of pro-life, and calling us “ugly” and that “we love guns”. I guess that last part is true, though I don’t know what that has to do with this current conversation.
But the reality of the situation is that we’re FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE! And the reality is that the only people that are ugly here are the Left. I don’t usually attack someone based on their looks, and I won’t here now. What I’m talking about when in say they’re ugly is what’s in their hearts: evil.
What is truly ugly is trying to convince women that it’s okay to kill their unborn because “they are not alive yet” and that doing so is a kick to the “patriarchy” or some such nonsense. Abortion is nothing short of death. Abortionists are glorified killers. And those who support this effectively support the death of human life.
No matter what way anyone says, that it’s “humane” or some other bullcrap, nothing will ever convince me that abortion is right in any case.
Oh, and if it’s “humane”, wouldn’t that imply that whatever is in the womb is ALIVE?! Because you don’t humanely kill what is technically not alive. We humanely kill animals when they become too old or when they get run over on the streets and are still alive. To say that abortion is humane is 1) erroneous, considering the methods of abortion and that PP has sold the parts of fetuses and likely still do and 2) would be conceding the point that a fetus is alive. You don’t do anything humane to something that isn’t alive.
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies at the gate.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike Chelsea Clinton’s fake religion, the contents of this newsletter are 100% Christian, conservative and pro-American. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store. Check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the midst of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, the great economic news in regards to unemployment claims and rates going down, and Cory Booker tooting his own horn about supposedly being like “Spartacus” when he is not even close to that, there have been news and developments coming from Brazil.
About what? Well, last week, far-right Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who has been dubbed “Brazil’s Donald Trump”, was stabbed with a knife while he was being carried around by a crowd during one of his rallies (video below, if you can withstand the shock of seeing someone being stabbed (no blood, though)).
Bolsonaro was rushed to the hospital and underwent life-saving surgery and is currently in stable condition. The suspect (whose name I won’t share so as to not give him credit or fame over this) was arrested by police, who said he “appeared to be mentally disturbed and had claimed he was ‘on a mission from God’,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
And that’s really where we get to the meat of this article.
The suspect was “a member of the left-leaning PSOL party from 2007 to 2014. On his Facebook page, the attacker recently posted messages criticizing Bolsonaro and supporting the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.”
According to the suspect’s lawyer, “[The suspect] told me there were religious and political motivations and that he hated the prejudice that Bolsonaro openly spoke about and held against different races, religion and women.”
It’s clear that the suspect is mentally disturbed as well as very much a socialist, if he’s praising the President of a country that is out of food, water and medicine, with things likely to get even worse as time goes on.
And yet, the suspect described himself as being “on a mission from God”?
Neither his actions nor his beliefs suggest that he is someone who is Christian or believes in a benevolent Ruler of the Universe.
But this is not the first time we’ve heard a Leftist claiming to be doing God’s work or being on a mission from God. It’s not often, but we occasionally hear Leftists such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer saying that they are doing God’s work in opposing Trump.
It’s utterly asinine for a number of reasons.
First, and perhaps most importantly, what kind of narcissistic and egotistical jerks are these people to believe God needs THEM to do anything for HIM?! If God wanted Trump gone from office, He would make it so. If God did not want Trump as POTUS, He never would have allowed him to win in the first place.
Second, the Left’s actions are very openly ANTI-GOD and ANTI-CHRIST! Let’s look over some of the things the Left supports/believes in:
Beyond that, the Left constantly mocks anyone who believes in Christ, with then-candidate Barack Obama having attacked middle-American citizens as people who “get bitter… cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
So they attack and mock those who have faith in Christ and then do a 180 and claim they are siding with God in opposing Trump or Republicans? Give me a break.
These people are the very incarnation of the Exodus 20:7 verse: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”
Frankly, if God were a Trump supporter, they’d call Him a Nazi too. So for anyone to do literally the opposite of what God would want them to do, i.e. supporting abortion laws and organizations that literally profit off of death, supporting the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, supporting the destruction of the nuclear family, supporting the destruction of established scientific principles surrounding one’s gender and supporting a death cult that calls itself a religion is fundamentally stupid and wrong.
They don’t love God. Not even close. They LOATHE Him. They actively try to REPLACE Him through government.
Throughout all of history, Man has been looking to be like God, or even BE God. From Adam and Eve to Barack Obama and the entirety of the Left, to everyone in between including Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin, Pharaoh, Marx, Soros, etc. Man has always sought to be like God. In this search to be like Him, they all grew to hate Him and be envious of Him.
He has the sort of power these mere mortals would KILL to get, with some of these people actually having killed someone for power. He controls the universe and everything that happens within it. It’s the sort of power no one could even imagine, everyone would love to have, but no one can attain.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Left HATES God. They hate Him, everything He represents and those who put their faith in Him instead of them. So whenever the Left claims they are doing God’s work or are in a mission from God, regardless of what the action is, I just have to call b.s. on that.
He would not call for anyone to support the death of the unborn. He would not call for anyone to stab a political candidate, good or bad. Those who do evil in the name of the Lord are detestable to Him.
How do I know this? IT’S IN THE BIBLE!
“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”
And before you leave, please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike the Left who lie about their convictions and motivations, I won’t tell you a single lie, so you can trust me when I say it’s completely free. All you have to do is input your email in the allotted box on the right, click on the button right below that where it says “Subscribe to our free newsletter” and you’re done! The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy and direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Recently, a young American couple (pictured above) decided to quit their jobs and bike across the world. The reason for this is, aside from Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, the couple, believing their jobs were taking precious time away from their best years of their life, fundamentally believed that Man was naturally and inherently good. Unfortunately, the couple, along with a several other cyclists, were killed by ISIS-related terrorists in Tajikistan, close to ISIS territory.
Austin wrote on a blog named Simply Cycling, that: “You watch the news and you read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place. People, their narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil. People are axe murderers and monsters and worse.”
“I don’t buy it,” he says. “Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own – it’s easier to dismiss an opinion as abhorrent than strive to understand it. Badness exists, sure, but even that’s quite rare. By and large, humans are kind. Self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind. Generous and wonderful and kind. No greater revelation has come from our journey than this.”
Now, these being the words of a recently deceased person, I will hold off on any kind of judgment. Instead, I will simply point out the dangers of living with the belief that Man is naturally good.
Austin here mentioned the “axe murderers” and such. Presumably, he was referring to the countless times radical Islamic terrorists have wielded axes to kill and/or maim their victims. Here’s the thing: you cannot describe such an action as anything other than evil. Maybe insane, sure, but most certainly full of evil.
But even if you simply choose to call it insane, you still have to understand that, at that point, you see humanity’s evil nature.
We often call these radical Islamic terrorists as barbarians, savages, and such. That is because they live with old-world mentalities that believe murder is not only justifiable, but right in many occasions. That barbarism, that savagery, is Man’s own nature.
Now, I’m not saying we are all savages, but even the Left’s own theory of evolution proclaims that we were all savages at one point. Under such logic, it only makes sense to understand that we are evil by nature, even according to the Left’s ridiculous theories of our existence.
If you want to see the perfect example of Man’s evil nature, look no further than a baby. No, I’m not calling babies evil. I’m saying they illustrate Man in its most basic form.
A baby is selfish. They require a lot of attention and if it does not get the attention it desires, it gets cranky and cries. A baby does not care if its mother is tired or hasn’t slept well at all. A baby’s needs come first.
Now, do we blame the baby for acting this way? Of course not. Why? Because it’s in its NATURE to act this way.
It’s by nature that we are so self-centered. We tend to LEARN to be more considerate towards others over time, if we have good parents. Why else do you think people come up with “sharing is caring” to tell to their children? Because otherwise, the child will tend to be selfish. It’s in our nature to be that way, and we need to learn to be more caring towards other people.
Thus, it’s in our nature to be evil and we need to learn to be good.
When Austin says that “evil is a make-believe concept…”, he could not be more wrong. Again, I’m trying to withhold judgment out of respect of his passing, but this needs to be pointed out.
Evil is not a make-believe concept. It’s a real concept that has existed since before Lucifer fell from Heaven.
If you’re going to say that evil does not exist, then how else can we explain the Holocaust, or the horrors of Communism/Socialism racking up kills like it’s a video game? No one can honestly say that the Holocaust was not an evil act unless they are evil themselves. No one can say the systemic death of hundreds of millions of people is not an evil act unless they are evil themselves.
To ignore the evil of those two acts, and to ignore evil in general, is to ignore reality. Now, I’m not saying evil is the only reason evil things happen. Hitler did not cause the Holocaust simply because he was evil. He thought he was doing something good. He had his own reason for doing it. It was an evil reason, most certainly, but he tried to put reasoning behind it.
Planned Parenthood is responsible for over 60 million deaths in America. But they reason their way out of being labeled as evil by proclaiming to be doing something good and noble.
People don't tend to commit an evil act out of sheer evil. The very terrorists that killed the cyclists did not kill them out of simply being evil. Their reasoning behind it was to kill infidels, those who did not believe in Allah.
However, no matter how one tries to explain or reason an evil act, that doesn’t take away from the evil factor of the act.
Now, I’m not saying that there are no good people in this world. Obviously, there are good people in this world, otherwise this world would be far worse than it actually is. I believe myself to be a fairly good person. I believe Trump is a good person. I believe Reagan was a good person. I believe the Founding Fathers were good people.
With that said, that does not mean that we are not naturally evil anyway. Take away any one of their consciences, and you’ll see humanity’s evil nature.
Because a conscience is really what separates good and evil. A conscience given to us by God, who knew very well who would be good and who would be evil in this world, as He is the one who ordained it that way. God is not the author of evil - we are. He knows and allows us to be this way for His purpose. But it's our evil heart that's inclined to do evil by nature.
The Bible time and time again speaks about the evil nature of Man. Because here’s the thing: if we were naturally good, we would not require Jesus’s sacrifice at the cross. If Man were not born in sin, Christ would never have had to die for our sins. If we were naturally good, the world would be almost devoid of all evil, because at that point, one would have to TRY to be evil.
Matthew 15:19 says: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” Jeremiah 17:9 says: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Mark 7:21-23 says: “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Evil comes from Man’s own heart. Evil comes from Man’s own natural instinct. If evil were a fake concept, and if Man was naturally good, that would render much, if not all, of the Bible utterly useless.
This is the way a Leftist thinks. That the Bible is garbage, erroneous and false and that Man is naturally good. All these things are false and incorrect.
Man is not naturally good. Again, if we were, the world would be a far better place. Man is naturally evil because we are apart from God’s own Spirit. The only being in existence who is naturally good is the Lord. In Him, there is no sin. In us, we are thoroughly born in sin.
It is for this reason that we need Him and it is for this reason that He sacrificed His only Son so that we may have salvation. We need Him precisely BECAUSE we are naturally evil.
Now, returning to the American couple, as well as the other cyclists killed by the terrorists, I offer my sincere condolences. But it should be a strong reminder that evil is a very real thing. A very dangerous thing. And that Man is an expert in evil things.
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There are plenty of people out there who, upon waking up in the morning, will watch the morning news alongside eating breakfast and drinking their coffee. When the morning news isn’t discussing politics or the weather, they will often times talk about a new scientific study about how product x will kill you one day and product y will kill you the next.
One moment, doctors and scientists will say that orange juice is bad and the next, they will say it’s good. They seemingly can’t make up their minds.
Similarly, a new research study from England finds that sleeping for more than 8 hours a night can increase your chances of cardiovascular disease and suffering a stroke. That sleeping for 10 hours a night (which I would agree might be a tad too much anyway) has been linked to a 30% higher risk of dying compared to someone who only sleeps 7 hours a night, a 49% increase in risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and a 56% increase in risk of dying from a stroke.
HotAir.com talks about this, saying that the researchers “found that folks who reported sleeping more than eight hours a night had a greater cardiovascular and mortality risk than those who leaped out of bed after only seven hours of shuteye. Of course, it’s not that they died more often, but they died sooner than shorter sleepers.”
Here’s the thing about medicinal science (and science altogether): even doctors are subject to God’s will.
I often watch the show “Frasier” on Hulu. In one episode, Frasier is upset over the fact that a fellow doctor of his age had died of a sudden heart attack and he tries to figure out what may have caused it. He discovers that the doctor actually lived a far healthier lifestyle than he did, exercising, eating right, etc. And yet, that doctor had died instead of Frasier, who did not, supposedly, exercise as regularly and eat as healthily.
At one point, he figures that, often times, people who exercise, eat right and do everything the right way die young, while someone who does not exercise, diet, and smokes like a chimney can live to their 80s or 90s.
The point I’m getting at is that, regardless of what we do in our lives, it is entirely up to the Lord what the result is.
I won’t directly challenge the researchers who came up with those statistics, as I do not have statistics of my own. However, what I do have is logic, common sense, and a relatively fair understanding of the world and the Lord who created it.
Everything in this world, including science, is entirely subject to what the Lord dictates will happen.
Take climate change for example. We all know there is next to nothing scientific about climate change, and it’s entirely based on Leftist rhetoric that people are worse than dirt and we need to elect people who will “save” the environment. But to make it seem legitimate, they have to call it science.
Well, here’s the thing: if the world is warming as they say it is (until it’s winter and they say it’s getting colder because they are coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs), what makes you think it has anything to do with us?
And if it’s getting colder, how is it our fault? There have been ice ages in the past. And there have been times when those ice ages ended. According to the Left, we are killing the Earth with our air conditioning units, our fuel-run cars (but somehow electric cars don’t harm the planet), and our capitalist systems and industries. Even if that’s true, that still doesn’t explain why ice ages began and ended long before cars and industry were invented. Long before capitalism was ever applied anywhere.
We do not have the power, even as an entire species, to affect the climate to such degree. Do we affect the environment? Of course! But what we do doesn’t affect the world to the degree that the Left claims it does. Because he’s the thing: if we really could destroy the Earth to such an extent, we already would have. If our climate is so delicate, it would not be able to stand Man’s evil nature.
But our God created this Earth to last until He decides it should end.
The God that created this Earth and this universe also created us and has dominion over us. If He decides that someone who smokes a pack a day will live to see their 90th birthday, who are we to complain? If He decides to take home someone who does what is right at a relatively early age, He has every right to do it.
Now, am I saying you should sleep for more than 8 hours just to stick it to these researchers? No. If you want to do it, there’s no one to stop you, of course. But I am saying that, at the end of the day, it is God who decides when your time is up. Not these researchers, not your doctor, not your sleep patterns.
We all die eventually. It’s silly to worry ourselves over such things. If the Lord wishes to end things now, He most certainly can. That’s true regardless of how well you diet and exercise.
Again, I’m not trying to put down the work of these researchers. I’m not suggesting you go out and do things that could actually put your health and life at risk. But we should always remember that it really doesn’t matter how much you sleep. God is the ruler of the universe and of you.
Everything that happens is according to His will. Nothing happens without His approval.
“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Late last month, a sporting goods employee in Tallahassee, Florida, detained a man who was attempting to steal a gun from the store. While this act should seem heroic, or at least the right thing to do for any employee, his employer thought differently and fired him over the incident.
The Tallahassee Democrat (news site belonging to USA Today) reported that on June 29th, Dean Crouch, 32, was working his shift as assistant manager of Academy Sports when suspect Jason White allegedly attempted to steal a .40 caliber handgun and ammunition.
According to the Daily Wire: “The Tallahassee Democrat states that White asked to look at the handgun at the firearms counter; when he was given the gun, he fled toward the front door, where he was tackled and subdued by Crouch and another employee. White was held in an office until police arrived; according to the Tallahassee Democrat, he admitted to stealing the gun and threatened to shoot people with it.”
Now, we can’t possibly live in a world so 180 degrees backwards that stopping a GUN THIEF in a store would get someone fired, right? That can’t be the reason he was fired. Well, you’re right. The reason he was fired, after having been suspended, was because he violated store policy barring employees from placing their hands on customers while they’re in the store.
Yeah, never mind the fact that Crouch possibly saved a number of people AND saved the store a couple hundreds of dollars from a stolen gun and ammo. Never mind that he did the right thing. No, what really matters is he put his hands on the “customer” who most likely did not actually purchase anything and so, one can hardly even define him as a customer. No, Crouch, if he wanted to stop White, should’ve used the Force instead.
Are you kidding me?
We’ll return to this sheer stupidity after I share some more details.
According to the Daily Wire: “Crouch’s attorney, Ryan Hobbs, told Fox News that Crouch, who is married with two young children, was prompted to act by other employees yelling ‘stop that guy’… Hobbs claims Crouch was placed on suspension after the incident… Hobbs noted after Crouch was fired on Tuesday that Crouch had been ‘suspended and terminated for preventing this thief from stealing this weapon.’ He told the Tallahassee Democrat, ‘Academy has decided to, instead of treating him like a hero he is, they terminated his employment effective immediately because he put his hands on Mr. White.’ Hobbs said Crouch and his wife had to put their home up for sale as ‘a direct result of him losing his job at Academy Sports.’”
Hobbs said of the store: “My instincts tell me they are concerned more about people like Mr. White suing them for being stopped in the course of a theft than they are about rewarding or acknowledging in a positive manner that Mr. Crouch may have saved lives… I think he was thinking there is a man running out of the store with a gun in his hand with his coworkers following from the firearm area screaming ‘stop that man.’ Something had to be done and he was the one that was going to do it.”
You really have to be left stupefied to believe a store employee would be fired for STOPPING THE THEFT OF A FIREARM! Now, I understand the need for such policy. These kind of things are put into place to prevent employees from possibly harming a customer in any way and to hold them accountable in the case that they do. However, as with many other cases, there are exceptions to such policy rules.
The thing about implementing and enforcing policy is that it needs to make sense. It needs to be reasonable. Had Mr. White been stealing just about anything else, I still believe it would be best to subdue and detain him, even if the store believes otherwise. But that’s just me. One can easily make the case for just letting them go as well and leaving the police to handle it.
However, we’re talking about a decently high-caliber GUN being stolen with matching ammunition – the type of gun most police officers use today. Despite any intentions Mr. White had with the gun (even if he didn’t admit he wanted to shoot people), the only sane and HEROIC thing to do is to subdue and detain the gun thief. And I honestly think even liberals would agree with me here.
With all the talks about gun control that had been happening earlier in the year, I think even hardcore liberals would agree with Mr. Crouch on this and hail him as a hero. Regardless of political leaning, Mr. Crouch stopped a man with a gun from fleeing the store. Anyone who stops an armed man should be hailed as a hero. And yet, this man was fired over store policy.
How ridiculous is that?! As I said before, there are exceptions to every rule. Those exceptions only exist within reasonable grounds. Stopping a gun thief from escaping your store should be one of those exceptions to that particular store policy. I mean, seriously. What was he supposed to do? Shout at the guy that stealing is against the law? Asking the guy nicely to return the stolen gun? Or use the Force as I mentioned earlier?
Had Mr. Crouch let Mr. White go, the thief would have shot and most likely KILLED some people. The thief ADMITTED to planning as much. Would that have been a more preferable outcome for the store? Not only would one of their employees had allowed a thief to kill people, but the store would have been out quite a few hundred dollars on the gun alone, let alone the ammo.
Tell me, how is any of that preferable to what Crouch did? No sane person can honestly tell me it would be.
Now, even though Mr. Crouch is seemingly in some financial trouble, I doubt he will find it difficult to find a job. If an interviewer asks him for the reason for his termination and Crouch explains it to them, I honestly believe that would nearly guarantee Crouch a new job. Such courage should, and definitely will, be rewarded. Any employer would love to have someone like Crouch on their staff.
I say he will be rewarded simply out of knowing God’s character. He will strengthen Crouch and reward him for such courage, not to mention recompense him for losing his job and his house. I know for a fact that this will set Crouch up for something better in the future.
As for Academy Sports, while I do not live in Tallahassee, I would not shop at that store. Don’t misunderstand, I am not encouraging people to boycott every Academy Sports store. I’m just saying that, for that particular shop, I would hesitate to shop there.
Unfortunately, I don’t quite know what this whole ordeal will mean to other criminals. They might see this kind of situation as a golden opportunity to rob at least that particular store, knowing that their employees can’t do anything about it. Maybe nothing will really come of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if other criminals were at least planning to do the same, seeing as there would be no repercussions coming from the store.
Then again, while I do not know the exact store policy, if the policy just talks about not putting your hands on “customers”, nothing says you can’t put your boot in their behinds.
I joke, of course, but still. What a crazy world we must live in for someone who would otherwise be seen as heroic to be fired for “violating store policy” in the act of literally rescuing people. Usually, I would try to come up with an analogy, but honestly nothing beats being fired over stopping someone from stealing a gun. You really have to wonder what was going through Crouch’s employer’s mind to arrive to the decision of suspension, let alone termination of employment.
I pray that Crouch will soon find another job with an employer that won’t punish their employees for doing the right thing, even if it violates company policy.
“Knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you were to watch nothing but the fake news media, prime-time television and Hollywood movies, you would think today’s America is largely and mostly liberal, and more specifically, secular in its beliefs. You would believe that Christianity is on the decline in this country and slowly being left in our nation’s past. And while this would be a dream for the Left, the reality is the complete opposite.
According to new Harvard research, Christianity in the U.S. is growing, not shrinking. The research brought into question the “secularization thesis”. This thesis holds that the U.S. is following in the steps of other advanced industrial nations in shedding their once vibrant culture of faith and moving towards a secular society. The research found no support of this secularization taking place. Not only that, the researchers also found that religion in America currently enjoys “persistent and exceptional intensity.”
A writer for The Federalist (Glenn T. Stanton) tackles this research as well, asking all the right questions such as why church numbers seem to be on the downswing if Christianity is growing, what kind of churches manage to maintain and even grow their numbers while others see dwindling numbers, what is contributing to this growth in faith, and what do we conclude from data about Millennial church-goers and former Christians.
Stanton concludes that, in regards to dwindling church attendance, these numbers do not equate dwindling belief in Christianity.
According to Stanton: “The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as ‘patently persistent.’”
In other words, statistically speaking, the percentage of people who attend church once a week, pray on a daily basis and accept the Bible as the Word of God is the same today as it was half-century or so ago. And it’s been constant in that entire time-span.
Stanton continues: “The percentage of such people is also not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day, while one in 15 do so in other countries on average. Attending services more than once a week continues to be twice as high among Americans compared to the next highest-attending industrial country, and three times higher than the average comparable nation.”
“One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God. Fewer than 10 percent believe so in similar countries. The United States ‘clearly stands out as exceptional,’ and this exceptionalism has not been decreasing over time. In fact, these scholars determine that the percentages of Americans who are the most vibrant and serious in their faith is actually increasing a bit, ‘which is making the United States even more exceptional over time.’”
So it’s not like a small part of the nation falls under this category. Christianity and its fundamental beliefs are widely believed throughout the nation and no other comparable country can even come close (which is actually sad, when you think about it, but it does explain a lot of things *ahem* Europe is screwed *ahem*).
Stanton also shares some more info: “In 1989, 39 percent of those who belonged to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated.”
So not only is Christianity growing in numbers, it is also growing in strength. More and more people are coming to faith, and those who are religiously affiliated say they hold strong beliefs and practices.
Pew research reports that “evangelical Protestantism and the historically black Protestant tradition have been more stable” over the years in comparison to mainline churches, which are dwindling in attendance. Stanton notes that there’s even “a slight uptick in the last decade because many congregants leaving the mainline churches are migrating to evangelical churches that hold fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.”
So while there have been diminishing numbers of church-goers, there has been a rise in evangelical churches due largely (or perhaps solely) to the fact that they hold true to the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. In other words, people want the real deal and are, understandably, turned off by fake Christianity.
Stanton writes: “When so-called ‘progressive’ churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches.”
I can think of a couple of churches that tend to be rather liberal in their teachings, rather than sticking with the actual word of God. Mainly the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA). If you belong to either one of these churches, forgive me, but it’s the truth. The amount of times I’ve seen so-called Roman Catholic clergymen and women upholding the liberal and anti-Christian belief that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that abortion is okay, at least in certain occasions, honestly has me worried.
And having actually attended a PCUSA church in the past and having held conversations with the pastor also gave me the opportunity to see just what they believe: the opposite of what Christianity does. I even had conversations with the church’s youth and they all agreed, back before the 2016 election, that they would rather have Obama for a third term than either Clinton or Trump. OBAMA AKA THE MOST ANTI-CHRISTIAN PRESIDENT TO EVER SERVE OFFICE!
So, understandably, my mother and I chose to head elsewhere. We chose to go to a REAL Christian church that taught REAL Christianity. This is the case for many people in America. Those who wish to be taught real Christianity and experience real Christianity leave the churches that don’t offer that, as well they should. What’s the point of calling yourself a Christian if you don’t actually believe in the tenets of the Christian faith? What’s the point of attending a church that isn’t teaching you valuable things about God, Christ, this world that He has created and the Word that He has spoken written down by His followers?
Regardless, let’s move on. The final item we will be looking at, since I don’t want to make this article too long, is Millennials. According to Stanton: “Pew reports that of young adults who left their faith, only 11 percent said they had a strong faith in childhood while 89 percent said they came from a home that had a very weak faith in belief and practice.”
This is not surprising in any way. If you grew up in a family that had very weak faith, there is little reason to stay in that faith. You either are curious enough to search further in the Bible, go to better churches, and become a stronger Christian than your family or, more often than not, you abandon that little faith altogether and simply attribute it to “growing up”.
I know of a lot of people who have been raised in a supposedly “Christian” household who abandoned their faith and believe their secularism is simply due to growing up and maturing. The reality is that weak faith almost always dies eventually. Not all the time, necessarily, but almost always. Particularly if you grow up in a household of weak faith.
Personally, I didn’t grow up in a Christian household. Quite the opposite really. My father was a devout atheist, if you will, who would honestly mock those of faith and consider science to be the ultimate truth, despite the fact that it can’t answer everything and hardly even manages to fully explain what it already tries to explain. Not to say science is a joke, it isn’t. But it’s not the end-all be-all of the truth of our world. Not to mention it doesn’t get much into the Creator of the world.
As I was saying, I didn’t grow up in a Christian household. I used to believe in the theory of evolution until I started to question its logic. How can a species evolve into an entirely different species, even if given millions upon millions of years to do so? It just doesn’t make sense. A species evolving and adapting to better survive its environment? That makes sense. A species evolving into an entirely different species altogether that acts entirely different from its previous type? Nope, that’s illogical.
But I used to believe these things. I didn’t have faith in Christ, but now I do simply because it’s the most logical thing to do. It’s not that we had weak faith. We didn’t HAVE faith. My father, most likely, still doesn’t. But as for my mother and I, we have faith and it’s a STRONG one.
What I’m trying to say is that those of weak faith could most likely lose that faith altogether. But sometimes, that weak faith, or even lack of faith, can turn into strong faith. Relatively similar to my situation, I also know of some scientists who sought to disprove the Bible who wound up converting.
As for Millennials (and just about everyone else), all it takes is a family of strong faith. Millennials are just another generation not too dissimilar to the previous ones. Strong faith is difficult to kill.
Overall, the research from Harvard is fantastic news that really challenges the Left’s belief that Christianity is on the down-slide and conservatives are panicking over it. Reality, as always, is entirely different from what they claim it is.
Not only is Christianity not on the down-swing, but it’s also growing in numbers AND in strength of belief, at least in the United States. I don’t quite know about the rest of the world but, considering what is currently happening in Europe and Latin America, it’s reasonable to believe things aren’t quite going so well, particularly because of the seeming rise of socialism just about everywhere in those areas.
Although the interesting thing about socialism is that, despite all its efforts, it can lead many to Christ. If socialism and communism managed to do exactly what they wanted, there wouldn’t be people of faith in North Korea trying to escape. There wouldn’t be underground churches in China.
An oppressive government tends to drive people to God, even if those people practice in secret rather than openly. So no matter which way you slice it, the Lord winds up being the winner anyway.
In America, this is exceptionally true.
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Every summer, the Left tries to make the claim that this year’s heat waves have been the worst on record and it is all our fault and we must elect more Democrats and give Democrat organizations more money to combat climate change. Every winter, they claim it’s the coldest winter to date and we must elect Democrats who will change course. If these idiots haven’t realized they’re talking about the changing seasons, there is little hope.
Still, there are some climate scientists who are not paid off by George Soros and the Democrat Party to make outrageous and often scientifically inaccurate claims about the changing climate of our planet. One such noted climate scientist is Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who often tries to put the brakes in people’s climate change hysteria by offering more accurate data.
Most recently, Dr. Spencer wrote an article challenging the message of a memo released by Public Citizen, a George Soros funded “consumer rights advocacy group”. In his article, Dr. Spencer shows graphs about New York’s maximum temperature for every June since 1895 (a figure from the NOAA) all the way to last year. The figure shows that the median temperature from 1901-2000 is 74.9 degrees Fahrenheit. It also shows that last year’s maximum temperature was LESS than 74.9 degrees.
According to Dr. Spencer: “The long term trend is not statistically different from zero.” In other words, New York’s maximum temperature last year is so close to the median, it’s statistically DEAD-SET on the median.
Dr. Spencer then mentioned: “The memo also made mention of the widespread record warmth the U.S. experienced in May, 2018. New York had its 7th warmest May on record this year, and the long-term linear warming trend there since 1895 is weak (0.22 F/decade) and not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. The May warmth in the U.S. was regional, as expected for weather variations, with much of Canada being exceedingly cold.”
And with the Left’s constant talks about this year being hotter than the last, Dr. Spencer makes quick mention of New York’s record high temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Take a guess as to when the state set this record. Surely, with all the talks about climate change, it must have happened in the last 20, 30 years tops, right? If the world is basically burning, we must be seeing record highs in a small timeframe, correct?
Not quite. It was on July 22nd, 1926 in Troy, New York. Over NINETY years ago. Do you want to know from what year it’s agreed (by the climate change community) substantial human-caused warming began? 1950, 24 years AFTER New York’s record high temperature.
So even they don’t have any argument that humans caused New York’s record high temperature. Thus, the only other possible contributor to the Earth’s change in climate is God. I know mentioning God in any scientific topic is taboo, for some reason, but let’s be honest here: nothing in this universe happens without God’s approval. That includes the Earth getting warmer or cooler.
But returning to New York, what’s more interesting is that the state’s record coldest temperature is far more recent. The state’s record low temperature is -52 degrees Fahrenheit. (If you thought 52 degrees was chilly, try its ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR DEGREES LESS!). This was on Feb. 18, 1979 in Old Forge, New York.
Now, if you want to talk about last week’s heat wave, Dr. Spencer has that covered, using the NOAA’s GFS forecast model for 5-day average temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentions: “… the excessive heat is (again) regionally isolated, which is exactly what we expect for weather… not for climate change.”
What the good doctor is saying here is that weather, even extreme weather, tends to affect specific regions. The concept of climate change only talks about global climate. Meaning that, under climate change, you would not have regional heat waves. You would have global-scale heat waves, which are not happening. The NOAA’s forecast shows that much of the southern states and west coast states are considerably colder.
Of course, that’s just the forecast. Let’s see what actually happened. According to Oregon State University’s Prism temperature analysis for July 1-2 (Dr. Spencer’s article was written on July 3rd) shows a similar picture to the forecast, although more of the southern states were covered in the heat wave and more of the Midwest avoided the heat wave (which was forecasted to hit them). This shows a couple of things.
First, this shows a temporary and localized weather pattern, again, contradicting the idea that we are suffering under climate change conditions (it would be warm everywhere, not just parts of the U.S.)
And second, it shows the inaccuracies and flaws with our current weather forecasting systems. The NOAA’s forecast showed more of the Midwest covered by the heat wave. According to what actually happened, that was erroneous. That doesn’t necessarily discredit the NOAA’s forecasting system, but it does show its flaws and inaccuracies.
What I’m trying to say here is that our current forecasting system can’t accurately predict the weather within a week, or even within a few days. But somehow, we can predict our Earth’s climate and state 50 to 100 years from now? At least when the Left was trying to predict 10 years down the road (still being completely wrong), they could be at least somewhat more believable (except when they would say all sea life would die and the ice caps will melt within that timeframe). But 50 to 100 years? Who could possibly accurately predict that? It’s just wild guesses to profit the Democrat Party and Democrat-affiliated organizations. Not to mention filling George Soros’ pockets.
Dr. Spencer then shows extreme high temperatures for the entire country from 1895 to 2017. The figure he shares (based from NOAA data) shows that there is no trend towards more hot days. In fact, 11 of 12 hottest years happened before 1960. The graph shows that the record high for days spent in a year with temperatures above 100 degrees was in 1935, with the second highest occurring a couple of years earlier and the third highest occurring in 1955. For 2017, we had (statistically) just over 4 days of temperatures over 100 degrees, and that’s the highest in roughly five years.
Finally, Dr. Spencer talks about renewable energy that the Public Citizen memo claims we can achieve with today’s technology (meaning today’s technology allowing 80 to 100% of our energy coming from renewable sources). Dr. Spencer (and logic) informs us that “this is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources.”
Of course, this is nothing new to us. We’ve known for ages that renewable energy is crazy expensive that would not get us anywhere near as much energy production as we do now. But it’s always good to see a climate scientist saying that renewable energy sources, as of right now at least, are simply too expensive and would be ultimately detrimental to people (even Dr. Spencer mentions that striving for using renewable energy right now would “worsen poverty” and would ultimately harm a lot of people).
Overall, it’s good to see a climate scientist calling out the Left’s hysteria when it comes to climate change. Usually, things aren’t even half as bad as these people claim they are. But hey, they need voters and the environment is so far the only thing they’ve got going for themselves since the economy is roaring, ISIS is defeated (pretty much), North Korea is looking to denuclearize and people are feeling confident about the future.
Wait, you’re telling me the Weekly Standard reported that greenhouse emissions in the U.S. are falling due to the falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas? And that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year plunged by 42 million tons, while “environmentally friendly” Europe’s emissions climbed by 92 million tons?
So, what you’re telling me is that Trump has been more environmentally friendly, despite rolling back green energy policies, than Europe?
Ok, maybe Democrats don’t have the environment card either.
“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...