Despite the fact that we recently had the Democrats hosting the first day of the Impeachment Circus, little news came out of it (just like with the Mueller hearings) other than things that are to the detriment of the Democrats (regardless of what people deep in denial might say about this). So, I turn my attention to another piece of recent news: The Salvation Army being defamed by hateful Leftists who pressured a spineless celebrity to threaten to pull out of their halftime show during the Cowboys-Bills Thanksgiving Day game.
Singer Ellie Goulding had initially partnered with the Christian organization that helps the homeless and the poor to sing during their halftime show for the Cowboys-Bills game on Thanksgiving Day. But angry Leftists bashed her for helping out The Salvation Army (Goulding had also been volunteering with them in New York) because they accused the organization of having an “anti-LGBTQ” agenda. In other words, Leftists hate that a celebrity would help out a Christian organization, so they throw out this accusation, which is the same one they use for Chick-fil-A, and just like with the chicken sandwich restaurant, it’s nothing but defamation.
Goulding, like many other celebrities, caved to the outrage mob and gave the following statement: “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community. I am a committed philanthropist as you probably know, and my heart has always been in helping the homeless, but supporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.”
In other words, she did NOT make any research on this and is taking the word of outright liars as the truth, threatening to pull out of the show if The Salvation Army does not quickly make a contribution to the LGBTQ community, aka extortion.
The reason I say she did not make any research is because she herself said that The Salvation Army was anti-LGBTQ when they are not.
The Salvation Army began in East London in 1865. It was a Protestant church and is now commonly known worldwide as an international charitable organization with the aim of ministering to the needy and bringing the Gospel to the streets. The Salvation Army’s website has a whole section regarding their helping LGBT homeless people. They explain how 40% of homeless youth in America identify as LGBT, nearly 33% of homeless transgender people are rejected from emergency shelters (not associated with The Salvation Army) and that LGBT Americans have a higher chance of being poor.
“The Salvation Army USA serves more than 23 million Americans every year. In every ZIP code of America, services are offered without discrimination… When a transgender person seeks help from us, we serve them in the same manner as any other person seeking assistance,” read their site.
Even the Prairie Pride Coalition, a gay rights organization in Illinois, advised locals in their community to go to The Salvation Army for help. The Salvation Army also provides people with shelter, job training, and help with substance abuse and food insecurity.
To say that The Salvation Army is anti-LGBTQ is a despicable lie. It’s a Christian organization and as such, they have the OBLIGATION to serve, as followers of Christ are called to serve, those around us who need help. That isn’t to say that they promote or support the LGBT agenda or anything of the sort. But doing so isn’t necessary for an organization to do good. Not that hateful bigots on the Left will see it that way. In their eyes, if an organization doesn’t kowtow to their every whim, it should be considered illegitimate in people’s eyes and should be defamed and destroyed.
As I have said multiple times in the past, no Christian or Christian organization (at least no true Christian) hates gay people. Why? Because hate is for evil; for Satan. We hate evil because God hates evil. We recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that it’s evil, which is why we do not endorse it or support it. But everyone is a sinner, including Christians, and if we were to discriminate against anyone who was a sinner, literally nothing would ever be done because there isn’t a single person on this earth who isn’t a sinner.
Jesus dined with sinners, not because He agreed with their sin or because He was accepting of their sin. Far from it; He dined with them because He did not want them to sin any longer. He forgave the adulterous woman not because He was okay with her sin but because He called on her to not sin any longer. He healed the blind and the lepers, who were considered to be that way because they sinned, not because He agreed with their sinful ways but because He loved them and called on them to not sin any longer, having them recognize Him as the Son of God and do what’s right in God’s eyes.
One doesn’t have to be accepting of homosexuality to be charitable to a homosexual. One doesn’t have to agree with the LGBT agenda in order to help the LGBT community where help might be needed.
God loves us despite our sin, not because of it. Likewise, we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, love our neighbors and even love our enemies, hard as that last one might prove to be. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, knows this extremely well and shows that in their good works. For anyone to defame them is utterly shameful, but not something I can be surprised by considering who is doing the defaming.
The Left hates Christians, hates God and hates anyone who would dare disagree with them. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, is one of their targets for defamation and destruction.
But The Salvation Army had a very good response to such defamation:
“We’d like to thank Ellie Goulding and her fans for shedding light on misconceptions and encouraging others to learn the truth about The Salvation Army’s mission to serve all, without discrimination. We applaud her for taking the time to learn about the services to the LGBTQ community. Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, we’re committed to serving anyone in need. Every day, we provide services such as shelter for the transgender community and resources for homeless youth…”
The Salvation Army knows that they are not what the hateful Leftists claim they are and are not afraid to fight back against such shameful defamation and ludicrous accusations.
As Christians, we are called to witness the Truth of the Gospel to everyone. I don’t know for certain if that is what they do in these shelters still, but I certainly hope they do, as that is what they are supposed to do.
But to reiterate, as Christians, we are called to serve and not to judge or discriminate against those who sin. We are, ourselves, sinners and we will be measured by the same rod with which we measure others. When it comes to LGBT people, we are called to rebuke them for their sins with love and try to help them to receive Christ. Same as we would adulterers or criminals or other kinds of sinners, we are to rebuke and help them receive Christ if possible.
2 Corinthians 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
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.
As much as I find it astonishing that I could ever agree with Michael Moore on something, it’s finally happened. While we disagree on virtually everything ever in relation to politics, we seemingly share a common belief: President Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
Now, there’s added stipulation to that idea, which is where we disagree once more. Moore believes Trump will win only if Democrats become complacent and believe they will win 2020 guaranteed. Such cockiness obviously back-fired in 2016 and Moore believes such cockiness, if it shows itself again and gets Democrat voters to not even bother voting because Trump will lose no matter what, will guarantee Trump gets re-elected.
Now, I did say I disagreed with that, but I should clarify that I don’t totally disagree. You see, he’s right in that Democrats will 100% lose in 2020 if they become as complacent as they were in 2016. However, he’s wrong, in my opinion, that avoiding such complacency will mean Trump loses in 2020. But the reason I argue this, I will share momentarily. First, I want to share what Moore actually said.
“Too many people in the summer of 2016 were so sure Hillary was going to win, saying no one is going to vote for this idiot. He could win again. I operate as if he is a two-term Trump. I have to. If you think any other way you are guaranteeing that whoever is going to run against him will lose.”
Moore went on to say that Trump is “an evil genius and he was able to outsmart the smartest person ever to run for president. He figured out how to win by losing the election. How did that happen? Historians are going to deal with this for years to come.”
Okay, there are a lot of things to get through with this. First, I don’t think I need to explain how Trump is not an “evil genius” as Moore describes him. He’s one of the most pro-life Presidents we’ve seen, he’s done his part to help out people who have suffered from hurricanes, he’s defended the people of Syria from their own government and he’s created millions of jobs and a booming economy that doesn’t show signs of slowing down.
Second, he thinks Hillary was the smartest person ever?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! If she’s the smartest person ever then I’m the tooth fairy.
Third, I have a few theories as to what he means by “he won by losing the election”. Either he is talking about losing the popular vote and still winning the election, which makes sense since he’s talked about it in the past (as has virtually every other salty Democrat and Leftist ever) or he’s talking about the hoax of a Trump-Russia collusion that “helped” Trump win an election he would have otherwise lost. Either could be the case, but I’m thinking the former is what he means. Either way, it’s dumb.
We have an electoral college for a reason. Trump won 304 delegates while Hillary won 227. Trump won 2,626 counties compared to Hillary’s 487. Take away California and you have FAR MORE votes for Trump than Hillary. The reason we have an Electoral College is so that a single state can’t decide who wins the presidency for the rest of the country. The Electoral College gives every state a voice.
And I didn’t hear these children whining and moaning when Mitt Romney won the popular vote in 2012. By their own logic and complaints, the candidate who puts dogs on top of station wagons should have won over Obama. And yet, not one of them complained about the Electoral College.
Moore then goes on to theorize that the person who wrote the anti-Trump op-ed for the New York Times was either Trump himself or “one of his minions.” I won’t discuss this because the entire thing is asinine and only reinforces our belief that there is a silent coup against Trump. This op-ed does more damage to the Left than to Trump.
Now, earlier I promised to explain why I think Moore is wrong about Democrats being able to beat Trump in 2020 if they go out to vote. I will explain this now.
Moore believes the sole reason Trump won was because Democrats stayed at home in 2016. While that certainly helped, I fundamentally believe Trump would have won even if they turned out to vote. Why? Because Hillary would’ve meant more stagnation for America. We did not want that and chose Trump to lead the country.
In 2020, Moore believes Democrats can beat Trump if they turn out to vote. Wrong again, for multiple reasons. First of all, while Trump was relatively unproven in 2016, Trump has done more than enough to show he is a competent leader and a fantastic President for this country both in terms of a massive and speedy economic revival (that’s Trump’s, not Obama’s) and in terms of foreign policy, with a nearly destroyed ISIS, a denuclearizing North Korea and a defunded Iran (though Obama probably has done lasting damage there anyway).
Second of all, and I think this might be just as important a point to make: no matter who wins in 2018, Trump will likely win in 2020.
Say that Republicans keep control of Congress. The economy won’t likely slow down, more jobs will be created and the country will keep improving and improving. With all the success that another two years will bring (remember, we still haven’t even hit 2 years into Trump’s presidency and he’s done more than the last 2 presidents combined) and the country knowing full-well who can take credit for this American revival, Trump will almost certainly win in 2020.
Now, say that Democrats win either the House or Senate, or even both. For all their talks about impeachment, actually getting the job done is virtually impossible. They need two-thirds vote in the Senate (and no nuclear option will be available), as well as the VP to vote in favor of impeachment. If he doesn’t, Congress will have to find the votes to override the VP’s veto. Unless the Democrats get a super-majority in the Senate, the chances of which become zero if they lose even one of their seats, Trump won’t be impeached.
However, that does not mean the Democrats are left in tatters. If they can’t impeach Trump, they’ll settle for disrupting everything he tries to do (which even then they won’t be able to disrupt absolutely everything) and slow down the MAGA agenda. If the Democrats win in 2018, Trump likely won’t be impeached, but things will not be pretty at all. Things will be slowed down, taxes will get raised and the economic revival we’ve been experiencing will dilute and we’ll go back to some level of stagnation.
That being said, Democrats winning in 2018 will all but guarantee Trump wins in 2020, because we all know he is a master at successfully pinning the blame where it must go. While other Republicans are complacent and don’t put the blame on Democrats, at least effectively, Trump will be able to successfully blame the Democrats for any damage they cause.
The only ways I see Trump losing in 2020 is either Trump majorly messes up and loses support, which is not too likely to happen or Democrats win a super-majority and successfully impeach Trump, in which case there wouldn’t even be a 2020 election for Trump.
But a lot of things would have to go right for the Democrats that I simply don’t think will happen.
Now, I’m not guaranteeing this by any means. A lot of things can happen between now and next year, let alone 2020. With all of that said, this should not be an excuse not to go out and vote Republican this November. Though the likelihood of Trump getting impeached is low, a Democrat House and/or Senate could derail the country and set us back years.
Losing 2018 wouldn’t be the end of the world but it’s not an ideal scenario. I’d rather have scummy Republicans who are fairly complacent but will keep taxes low and jobs coming in and will leave Trump alone for the most part than have scummy Democrats who are thirsty for blood from Trump (figuratively) and anyone who ever dared support him, and thus, dared defy them.
Republicans may not have done much to earn our votes, but Democrats have done everything to let us know those nut-jobs should not get anywhere close to public office, lest they be allowed to run this country in the direction of Venezuela.
While there are some good Republicans, I do not see a single good Democrat. I’d rather take a shot with an untrustworthy Republican who might do the right thing on occasion than vote for a Democrat whom I fundamentally know wishes to turn this country upside down and into something it was never founded to be.
At this point, this race isn’t about Republican vs. Democrat. It’s not Right vs. Left. It’s Good vs. Evil. I’m not saying all Republicans are good, but voting for Democrats, at this stage in the game, is effectively voting for evil. What I mean by good vs. evil is it would be good for Republicans to keep control of Congress, even if they still play political games and try to attack Trump on occasion. But allowing Democrats to have control of either chamber of Congress, or both chambers of Congress is allowing for evil to basically run amok.
Regardless, that’s to be discussed at a later date. For now, I just wanted to take note that Michael Moore, for as ignorant as he is, is not a complete moron. He’s at least smart enough not to get too confident in Democrats. For that, I’ll give him credit. For everything else, however, that’s a different story.
Even when I agree with Moore, I end up disagreeing with him to some level. Isn’t life just funny sometimes?
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
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.”
I find it difficult to say that the Left can get any lower. That would be to insinuate that they have not hit rock-bottom. Well, they’ve hit rock-bottom and somehow continue to dig further down.
An article by PJ Media brings to light some horrendous things Planned Parenthood is doing… aside from leading the world in infanticide.
The article is titled: “Parents Stage Walkout Over Planned Parenthood’s Graphic, Violent Sex Ed in Public Schools.”
Upon learning just what these sick people are teaching children in schools, you’d want your child to stay home from school as well.
The article begins: “Sex education in public schools has gone off the deep end. Gone are the days of handing out birth control and practicing putting condoms on bananas. These days your kid is more likely to come away from school with more sexually deviant knowledge than single gay dudes in New York City have thanks to Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive sex ed program that has somehow made it into public school curriculums. These programs teach dangerous and violent practices like BDSM, asphyxiation, gender-bending, anal sex, and let’s not forget ‘rimming,’ which can saddle your kid with nasty parasitic infections.”
Now, I won’t tell you what each of these things mean, lest I corrupt good people’s minds, but these are all pretty terrible things to teach in school. Some of these things are fairly self-explanatory as to what they mean and the others I shall leave you to make the decision of finding out on your own. But upon knowing what they all mean, you’ll likely gag in disgust not only at the fact that these things exist, but more importantly, that they are being taught to CHILDREN!
The article continues: “Planned Parenthood has already been caught on video by Live Action advising a girl they think is 15 years old to allow her boyfriend to beat, whip, and gag her.”
Even more horrendous than teaching them about it is to invite them to PARTICIPATE in these activities, albeit by taking away the actual “sex” from it.
And the irony is not lost on me, though it may be lost on these Leftists, that recently, the Left has been “preaching” about treating women right and not taking advantage of them and would still be willing to subject a teenage girl, who’s a MINOR, in partaking in BDSM with her boyfriend.
You must truly be sick in the mind to do something like that. Both partaking in BDSM and encouraging a teenage couple to participate in it.
Now, there is some bit of good news to come of this. Not from PP or the Left themselves, of course. They are sick, disturbed people. No, the good news comes from concerned parents, as the title of the PJ Media article suggests.
The article quotes organizers of the walkout, called Sex Ed Sit Out: “On April 23rd, parents around the nation will be pulling their children out of school for the day in protest of dangerous and graphic sex education and uniting at various locations to hold press events and field media questions.”
Rhonda Miller, Education chairwoman of the Indiana Liberty Coalition and one of the organizers of this protest made a very good and interesting point: “Follow the money. Comprehensive sex ed is being rolled out across America, often sponsored by special interest LGBT groups like Human Rights Campaign, and disguised as anti-bullying programs. If it’s not okay for special interest groups like the NRA to be buying classroom time to push their agenda, then how is it okay for HRC monies to be buying schools off to teach gender-bending ideology and anal sex tutorials?”
A very good point, as I just said. There’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell that any government-funded school would allow NRA representatives to buy some classroom time to teach children about the importance of the 2nd Amendment, the importance of arming oneself in order to be safe from harm and how to handle a gun safely. Frankly, I would’ve paid an entire school-year’s worth of lunch money to have an NRA representative speak at my school.
I did have a Planned Parenthood representative speaking in one of my classes. Thankfully, I didn’t care to pay much attention and only really remember the representative putting a condom on a banana, which was mentally scarring enough.
I don’t know if I would’ve been able to hold my lunch, that I would literally have right before this class, if that representative started speaking about BDSM, asphyxiation, gender-bending (which I don’t know if it was a thing back then… Truthfully, I still don’t exactly know what it is and I refuse to search for it and further corrupt my own mind), anal sex and “rimming”, all of which I didn’t know about at the time, except for anal sex.
Now, there’s more to this than just what I’ve shared so far. This “comprehensive sex ed” program teaches abstinence too… in a very warped sort of way. You see, the definition of abstinence is to “restrain oneself from indulging” in sexual behavior. But Planned Parenthood’s definition of abstinence includes “masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation.”
That’s literally the antithesis of what it means to abstain from sexual behavior. All of those things easily qualify as indulging oneself sexually. How could that be considered abstinence? Then again, that’s a question to ask someone who’s not utterly backwards in their thinking. Someone who uses logic and their brain to think, not their heart or sexual organs.
You ask that question to a Leftist and they’ll likely laugh as though you’re making a joke.
The article then mentions: “New ‘comprehensive sex ed’ programs do not include any discussion of celibacy as a viable alternative to early sexual activity, which can lead teens into poverty, early pregnancy or chronic illness.”
Now that’s not surprising whatsoever. Of course Planned Parenthood isn’t going to encourage kids not to have sex. THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS REVOLVES AROUND ABORTING UNWANTED BABIES! For Planned Parenthood to encourage kids not to have sex would be the equivalent of Ford Motor Company to encourage people to walk more. Why would they diminish their possible return by teaching celibacy? Because it would be the right thing to do? There’s nothing about Planned Parenthood that is right. Nothing that is redeemable (about their business, not necessarily their employees).
I still find it difficult to say that Planned Parenthood, or the Left in general, can sink to new lows, but this will continue happening. They will only get worse. They won’t stop until they get absolutely everything they want. Even then, they likely won’t stop so that they could retain everything they’ve “earned”.
They will continue to corrupt young people’s minds. David “I’m a Parkland shooting survivor even though I wasn’t there” Hogg is a good example of their work. They won’t stop until the whole world bends to their will. Until the whole world thinks the way they do. And they’ll accomplish that through one of two ways: utter global corruption through decades and centuries of polluting people’s minds (with sexual deviancy being but one of many ways to accomplish that) or through utter annihilation of opposing points of view through police and military forces.
The Left’s ultimate goal is global domination. Not necessarily through warfare like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or France under Napoleon, but through “diplomacy” using the U.N.
I believe I’ve said as much in previous articles, but it’s always important to bring up when it’s relevant. Not to deviate from the topic at hand of the disgusting “education” provided by Planned Parenthood, but to demonstrate the road the world is on and show where we’re headed if the Left succeeds.
We need Christ now more than ever and we’ll need him in the future more than we do now. Of course, those who know and understand the Bible, or at least the Book of Revelation, know very well that things will get worse before they get better. And for most of the world, things won’t get better. Thankfully, those who believe in Christ will never have to experience such a dreadful world. As bad as things are today (culturally, that is), it’s truly nothing compared to the foretold seven years of tribulation that lie ahead.
Again, thankfully, Christ’s followers won’t be around to experience it, at least those who believe in Christ before Rapture. There’s certainly a possibility, even likelihood, of people coming to Christ after Rapture. But for those who believe in Him now and today, they will never have to experience those seven years even if those seven years began the second after this article is finished being written or read.
What the Good News brings is the assurance that, while Evil persists in this world, it is only temporary. God’s Will, not Satan’s, is what will not only stand the test of time, but also the test of timelessness… if that makes sense.
“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
We’ve often times compared Donald Trump to former President Ronald Reagan on this website. I’ve even written a whole article on that subject! “Could Donald Trump Be The Next Ronald Reagan?” And it seems as though I’m not the only person that has drawn comparisons between the two Republican Presidents.
Venezuelan Representative Jorge Arreaza gave an interview after the assembly, in which he said: “For a moment, we didn’t know if we were listening to President Reagan in 1982 or President Trump in 2017.” That sounds like a pretty nice compliment, wouldn’t you think? Well…
The Venezuelan Representative actually thought he was insulting Trump rather than complimenting him. Naturally, being from a nation that’s been socialist for decades, he probably thought Reagan was a terrible human being and that comparing Trump to him was some sort of insult.
Little does he know that people like me actually appreciate his “insult” towards Trump. If he thinks Trump is like Reagan in that respect, I know we chose the right person for the job.
To compare Trump to Reagan would be the equivalent of comparing Obama to FDR. The Democrats LOVE FDR, so to say Obama would be like FDR would actually be a compliment even if intended as an insult. Likewise, to compare Trump to Reagan is a compliment, not an insult.
And do you know what is interesting? The Left almost NEVER makes that comparison between the two. Why? Because Reagan’s legacy was that of making America great. He made America incredibly powerful and rich. He is one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And he’s remembered as the ideal Republican President. So to say Trump is like Reagan would not be advantageous to the Left.
Yes, the media has attacked “Reaganomics” or trickle-down economics, not knowing that it’s because of those economic plans and policies that America is so powerful. But they never go so far as to say Trump is like Reagan. Because too many people, including some democrats even today, like and have liked Reagan and think of him as one of the best presidents we've had.
Democrats certainly don’t want Trump to be remembered in such a way and are doing the best they can to make certain of that. Or at least make the illusion of it. Trump’s legacy is entirely up to him. What he does and doesn’t do is on him. There will be obstacles in the way (the Establishment being the biggest of them all), but the media can’t destroy Trump’s legacy. Because they couldn’t destroy Reagan’s.
Returning to the Venezuelan Representative, he certainly has plenty to learn. Above all things to learn is that his country is an utter hellhole in the world and it’s because of the very socialist government he’s defending. But other than that, he should learn one important lesson given to him by John Roberts in an interview on Special Report: “If you’re going to try to insult a Republican, don’t compare him or her to Ronald Reagan.”
Like I said, comparing Trump to Reagan is a massive compliment to him. And I certainly appreciate it, even though it was meant as an insult.
And the funny thing about the whole thing is that I agree with him on that instance. Even though it’s entirely likely that this representative was taught that Reagan was the closest thing to the actual devil, most people don’t see Reagan that way. And if he’s comparing the two Presidents, then most people will take it as a compliment, even with the context of the insult.
And, actually, let’s focus more on the meaning behind those words. To this representative, Reagan was probably a degenerate and evil person. And he clearly sees Trump that same way. The media certainly sees Trump that way. Hollywood certainly sees Trump that way. And the Leftist base certainly see Trump that way. They think he is the definition of evil. When in reality, they are the ones that follow and idolize evil people.
Kathy Griffin is clearly evil and messed up in the head, and yet people like her? Obama did his absolute best to destroy the country, and yet people like him and wish he was still President? The people on the Left are all evil, and yet people like them?
Do you wanna know why? It’s not just because evil people tend to like evil people. It’s not just because Leftists are evil and love the evil deeds of the Left. It’s also because there are people that have a misconstrued idea that evil is good and good is evil. As Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
These people think evil is good and good is evil. They think freedom for everyone is evil and freedom for only a few is good. They think Trump and Reagan are/were evil and think Obama and Hillary are good. They think following Christ and being a Christian is evil and following Mohammed and being an atheist is good. They think being white is evil and being a minority is good, when being a specific race shouldn’t matter. They think killing unborn babies is good and protecting them is evil.
These people are thoroughly messed up in the mind to think these things. There is a remedy, but they ignore it and mock it. They avoid listening to conservatives and think conservatives shouldn’t be allowed 1st amendment rights. They avoid listening to Christians. They avoid going to church and avoid reading the Bible. They avoid FOLLOWING CHRIST as though it would kill them.
And in a sense, it would. It would kill the evil within them. It would save them from eternal damnation. It would save them from the wrath of God that will inevitably fall upon them. It would educate them on how the world really works. It would turn them against socialism and communism. It would thoroughly change them, and they don’t want that.
They don’t want that because they don’t think it would be right. Like I said, they think being a Christian is evil and that Christians are evil. They’ve been fed that garbage since they were born, or at least started attending public school. Why would they follow Christ if they think doing so would be evil or not the right thing to do? I know the devil is the very definition of evil, therefore I wouldn’t follow him. But I also know that Christ is not just good, but is GOD, and so, I follow Him. Likewise, if I were a Leftist and have believed my entire life that being a Christian is evil, why would I become a Christian? Why would I follow Christ?
These people don’t know the true definition of good and evil. Whenever they can blame God for something bad happening, they will. I’ve seen people on social media blaming God for Hurricane Irma and Harvey. I’ve seen people ask “If God is so good, why does He allow bad things to happen?” They don’t know that when bad things tend to happen to people, they seek God for shelter and protection and He provides.
They don’t know that God is in full control of everything, even evil. They don’t see disasters as opportunities for people to get closer to God. They see them as opportunities to blame God and accuse Him of being evil and try to convince people to turn away from Him.
They don’t know God, and yet, they make accusations of Him and His character as though they did. They haven’t read the Bible and avoid it at all cost and yet, believe it’s a pile of garbage and shouldn’t be trusted and read.
The point I’m getting at is that they don’t truly believe they follow evil people or that they are evil themselves. They see sin as something to be celebrated, not to be repented of. They don’t know the Truth, and will do whatever they can to avoid learning it.
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
There are only two religions in this world: the God-centered religion, also known as Judeo-Christian religion, and the man-centered religion, which has many names, from humanism, to LGBT to socialism. The first one worships GOD and the latter one worships SELF. The first one worships the CREATOR and the latter one worships the CREATION – whatever the creation ‘feels’ he/she wants at the moment, he/she must get.
When people prioritize fantasies – i.e: who to have sex with, how to make more money, how to become more powerful – they prioritize THEMSELVES. Whether what they want is legal or illegal, moral or immoral is not even a consideration.
And the LGBT community is notoriously self-centered. From Breitbart this past Monday:
‘Leading doctors have said they back NHS-funded womb transplants for biological males who identify as women, a procedure which experts say will be possible within 10 years'
Sexuality has become another religion. It is no longer identified as the natural heterosexual physical relationship between two loving spouses. Sexuality has been downgraded to ‘fun’ and at the same time it has been elevated to an object of worship. Men and women who prioritize their own basic sexuality have downgraded themselves to mere sexual objects while worshiping their own selves.
As a Christian, I’m not offended by this – I’m saddened. I think it’s important for everyone to know that Satan is behind all of this. He wants VICTIMS – he wants your SOUL. He doesn’t care about you – he just cares about himself. And while Satan isn’t God – he cannot be in more than one place at one time – he certainly has many helpers – demons going around. Most notably these demons are leftists and jihadists. People who have been fooled into thinking that nothing is more important than satisfying your most immediate desires – whether it’s right or wrong is irrelevant. Since they promote relativism, right or wrong is defined by each one of us. Except, it’s not.
Martin Luther, the German theologian who was a central figure in the Protestant Reformation, was once summoned to see the German authorities. His friends begged him not to go because they feared Luther might get killed. As you know, Luther was opposed to the corruption in Rome and among the elites in Europe and wanted the church to go back to basics – to spread the Gospel to save souls. But the European elites found Luther an annoyance, as the Roman Church was taking money from people by selling indulgences – a corrupt practice that gave believers the wrong assurance they’d be saved if they paid what the ruling class asked them to pay. Luther was concerned.
But Luther did go to face the authorities – he said: ‘I know there are a lot of demons in that court, but I’m going anyway’.
You see, Luther back then recognized there were demons everywhere. Churches no longer explain the existence of demons out there, but for the longest time people knew very well that Satan had his own army of fallen angels to attack the godly. Even as recently as in the first half of the 20th century, Hitler recognized in his own autobiography ‘Mein Kampf’: ‘today I made a deal with the Devil’. And we all know what happened next…
These demons know about God. Satan knows about God. They don’t know God well, obviously, but they know He’s watching our every move.
There’s nothing that pleases the enemy more than crushing your soul – than tempting you to separate yourself from your Creator. He’s done this since Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, when he fooled them into eating from the tree God specifically commanded them not to.
These demons are at work today, my friend. They want you to buy into this ‘relativism’. They want you to think that anybody can do whatever they want with their lives. And while this is technically true, the problem is there are consequences to everything we do.
When you reject God, He’ll let you perform atrocities such as changing your gender. He’s going to say ‘you reject my creation? You don’t like how I created you? Be my guest! One day you and I will meet face to face and I’d love to hear what your excuse is’.
My friend, there’s no such thing as relativism when it comes to ethics. We don’t decide what’s right or wrong. God does. And God speaks to us in many ways – the most straightforward resource is the Bible.
If you’re a Christian, don’t be offended by the immorality you see all around us. Feel sorry for them. After all, there’s no fun where these people are headed…only fire. Pray for them to find Jesus before it’s too late.
'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.'
Last week, I talked about the Stanford Prison Experiment and how Man is basically evil. I also mentioned how I meant to talk about more than just that example, so I guess you can consider this a sequel article to that previous one.
In the previous article, I intended to mention one of the larger points of why I believe, and have sufficient evidence to believe, that man is basically evil. That piece of evidence is: abortion.
Think about it, what is abortion really? It’s “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” That’s literally the very definition Google gives you when you look it up. “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy”, now that’s not something that sounds all too pleasant, is it? To a Leftist, the definition of an abortion would be “the procedure which you undertake in order to not suffer consequences of your mistakes or poor decisions.” To the Left, abortion is nothing more than a “get out of jail free” card for people that only care about having fun.
This is the reason they try to deceive and convince people into believing human fetuses aren’t alive. It’s so that people can be dumb and have fun all the time without suffering consequences. But the fact of the matter is: an abortion means the termination of a human child’s life. Even leftist Google defines fetuses as 'human'! The termination of any human life is MURDER! Plain and simple. And murder is evil! I can’t believe I even have to tell anyone that! It’s simply common sense. If you end someone’s life directly, it’s murder. If it’s indirectly, it’s manslaughter. That’s basic law.
But the Left, Evil in general, won’t say that. They consider killing a cow in order to have steak or a burger as murder, but the killing of a human child while in the womb as a right. When that’s your way of thinking, you have an evil mind, not to mention an evil heart.
And considering the Democrat Party’s position on the issue, you just know how evil and full of hatred that party is, if they are dead-set on being pro-abortion, with no chance of changing their minds.
For someone to not only be ok with it, but to outright encourage women to do it, it takes quite the evil heart. This is a large part of the reason why no Christian can consider themselves Democrat and why no Democrat can consider themselves Christian. There’s no room in the Democrat party for Christian views. And there’s no room in Christianity for Democrat views. You can’t call yourself a Christian if you support a party of murderers. And you can’t call yourself a Democrat if you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and follow the Bible to heart.
It’s just not possible to be both, at least for long. Either you stay Christian and leave the Democrat party, or you abandon your faith and your God and become a full-fledged Democrat supporter and maybe even an activist.
It’s at that point that a person shows his/her true colors. Much like with the Prison Experiment, they make a choice to either be evil or be good. It’s the same case here. A person either chooses Christ, therefore choosing good, or choosing the Left, therefore choosing evil.
And the thing about it is that, if someone’s not truly a Christian, their hearts will always choose evil. This is why I say that Man is basically evil. Without God, they will choose evil. Now, there are good Samaritans that follow their conscience and do good, regardless of whether or not they are believers, but conscience comes from God, much like everything else in this world.
God created us in His image so that we may be like Him, but He also gave us free will, so that we may CHOOSE AND DESIRE to be like Him.
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
We 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...