Monday, September 15, 2014

Pope Francis Blasphemes

Pope Francis Blasphemes


[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her, in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother and the Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord. These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. And also, we look at our little soul that will never be lost, if it continues to be a woman close to these two great women who accompany us in life: Mary and the Church. And just as our fathers left Paradise with a promise, today we can go forward with a hope: the hope that our Mother Mary, steadfast at the Cross, and our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, give us.

-- Pople Francis at the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows in Casa Santa Marta, 15 September 2014
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/15/pope_at_santa_marta_learning_from_our_lady_of_sorrows/1106542
*************************

In his message, Francis the Pope commits a number of errors. He limits Christ's earthly mission so that it matches that of the Catholic Mary and the Catholic Church, elevates his church to a status equal to that of God, and positions his church so that it interrupts the relationship between God and man. By mis-defining the gospel, Francis endangers his followers' souls.

[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her...

Paul called Jesus the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-47), but he never called Mary the Second Eve or the New Eve. You can search for yourself in dozens of translations, including Catholic-approved translations, at BibleGateway.com or BibleHub.com In the context, Paul never even mentioned Mary. Only once does Paul ever mention a Mary in any of his writings; that mention is a greeting to a different woman who lived in Rome. And only twice does he mention Eve, and neither of those mentions honors her. 

The Catholic Church might ask, if Jesus was the Second Adam, who was the Second Eve? The question errs by assuming that there must be a second or new Eve. Before asking the question, you must prove the need for a New Eve, and that proof would have to include the heretical idea that Christ was not enough for our redemption without an Eve.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'... in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

Mary did not need to become mother. She was mother (with a small 'm') by virtue of having given birth to the body of Jesus. However, Francis means more than that. He means that Mary became Mother to all believers. This terminology and notion are totally without Biblical foundation. It's simply not there. I refer you again to the Bible. Search it. it is not there.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

The Catholic Church may ask, If we have a Father, who is our Mother? Let me ask you: If Jesus had a physical mother, who was his physical, genetic father? But He did not have a physical father, you say. He was born of a Virgin! And that would be the right answer.

If Jesus did not need to have a physical father, then why do we need a spiritual mother? We don't.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother...

The Bible says our hope is in God our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:1), the return of Christ (Titus 2:13), and everlasting life (1 Peter 1:3). Our hope is not like that of Johnny who has two mothers.

We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

This statement implies that if we do not have Mother Mary and Mother Rome, we are orphans. I can just see God the Father saying, Ahem! What I AM, chopped liver? 

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 says, “Come out from among them, and be separate... And touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be My sons and daughters," says the Lord Almighty. To usurp the Father's role as divine Parent crosses the line into full blasphemy.

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Does an organization suffer scourging? Does an organization suffer from nails through hands and ankles, tortured, bleeding, starving for air? Does an organization die, and can its death wash away sins? Sure, the Catholic Church has had a few martyrs. However, to the contrary of Jesus, this organization has wrapped itself in silk, and adorned itself with gold and jewels. Indeed, it has afflicted genuine saints with torture and death through exposure to the elements, starvation, whips, gutting, iron maidens, and burning at the stake. That's a really strict mother!

More to the point, did Mary or the Catholic Church shed their blood to wash away our sins? [Y]ou know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your worthless lifestyle received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.... (1 Peter 1:18-19)

These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us

Oh, where is Mary preaching the gospel tonight? Is she serving food at a soup kitchen? I want to go! Just how does she carry on the work of giving us Christ? No, her role in giving us Jesus ended nearly two millennia ago.

Does the Catholic Church give us Christ? That is debatable, since, by elevating Mary and themselves and by under representing the power of Christ's sacrifice, the Catholic Church gives a lessened Christ. By inserting themselves between God and man, they give us a more distant, less caring Christ. By giving out God's grace bit-by-bit through sacraments, a continuing sacrifice, and chanted blessings, the Catholic Church gives us a Christ who lied when He said, It is finished (John 19:30). Just which Christ do they give? God the Son of the Scriptures, or an imaginary, diminished Christ? And if they give us a diminished Christ, are they not withholding the Christ who is?

But that as a trivial discrepancy compared to that final phrase, they bring forth Christ in us.

First, it is the believer's responsibility to bring forth Christ in himself. Wherefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12) Know God, know His Word, know His will. Then seek holiness. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) There will be no passing of the buck before God's throne.

Second, it is the responsibility and privilege of all believers to bring forth Christ in each other. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.... (Hebrews 10:24) In that sense, it is the church -- the believers who make up the body of Christ, not some organization -- that encourages growth in Christ. God's relationship is with His children, not some soulless institution.

Third, it is God which works in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. (Philippieans 2:13) God arranges our lives to challenge, stretch, and mature us. The Holy Spirit enlightens us (Ephesians 1:16-18) so we can understand the things of God and then teaches them to us from "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6:16-18).

Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Without Mary, there would have been somebody else. Sorry. This was God's doing, and all the glory goes to God (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11). Mary said, my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Luke 1:47). If she had lived a sinless life, as Mary-worshippers claim, she would not have needed a savior. Mary was special because of the grace given to her, not because she was anything special by her own rights.

When Francis says without the Church, he means, without the Roman Catholic Church, we cannot go forward: God cannot take us forward without Rome. God's Holy Spirit cannot enlighten and teach us through the God's Word, the Bible. God cannot shape our lives or cause us to grow from within. You can't do it on your own or with God. You need Francis and Company because God is too helpless. This is not the teaching of Christ, but of a cult that usurps God's role and separates man from God.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'..., in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. 

Francis implies that Christs path was to learn obedience and suffering. Hebrews 5:8 says that, although Christ was God the Son, he learned obedience by the things which He endured. This verse can easily mislead one to think Christ had to learn some information or behavior that He did not know; but that is not the meaning.

As eternal God the Son in Heaven, Christ followed the will of the Father; yet he could not experience an obedience that cost Him, that challenged a carnal instinct to resist evil in order to preserve one's life. Christ did not learn to obey; He learned the experience of obedience. He learned the experience of humiliation and suffering.


Francis correctly includes suffering and obedience in Christ's path; but he incorrectly implies that they make up the totality, or at least the major purpose of, Christ's path. Francis omits the single reason that required such a path: namely, that this path led to the Cross for the purpose of redeeming a people from the doom brought upon them by sin. Obedience and suffering were instrumental, but they were secondary to the sacrifice.

God did not so love the world that He gave His Son to suffer and learn obedience.

Conveniently, Francis omits the purpose in Christ's path that Mother Mary and Mother Church could never follow. Catholicism's imitation of Biblical places faith in two women -- one historic and the other a corporation -- that cannot redeem. Francis pursues a false hope. The true hope is in God the Son.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

Revelation 18:4

 Copyright 2014, Richard Wheeler


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Former and Latter Rains and Restoration of the Gifts of the Spirit


In this book, Charles Matism talks about the former and the latter rain. He establishes a pattern in the Bible of 1) Redemption and New Creation (the Former rain), and 2) Judgment (the latter rain). He then says that the New Testament times was the former and the end times are the latter. But is it possible that the latter could come at the time of judgment - like at the same time as everyone shall bow and every tongue confess?

Do the latter rains refer to a restoration of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Abstract

The early rains, latter rains, and all rains in-between make up one season. The season occurred when Israel was restored before Christ, and may occur again during the Tribulation because former rains follow Israel's repentance. I believe the latter rains represent not judgment, but harvest and/or preparation for dry season.

Former Rains and Latter Rains -- One Season

Penn and the Tea-costals spread the idea that the former and latter rains symbolize early and end-time outpourings of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the former and latter rains become mysterious symbols in Bible eschatology.

However, that does not agree at all with Middle Eastern meteorology.

The Middle East, like many regions, has a dry season (summer) and a wet season (winter). The first rains of the wet season are called the former or early rains. The last rains of the wet season are called the latter rains.

The wet season is one continuous season. This is why, figuratively, separating the reference into separate first and second Pentecosts is so wrong.

Let me illustrate the error of Penn and the Tea-costals. Suppose you have a flat ridge that runs north and south. It would be correct to speak of the north end of the ridge and the south end of the ridge. However, Penn looks at one end and calls it North Mountain. Then he looks at the other end and calls it South Mountain. Penn tells the Tea-costals about this, and they think the ridge is two separate mountains with a big gap between them.
Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first [month of the Hebrew year]. (KJV) Joel 2:23
Following the hot, dry summer, the early rains bring refreshment and soften the earth so farmers can break up the hardened soil and plant seeds. Note the word "moderately." Rains that came too lightly provided little relief. Rains that came heavily caused flooding. God gave just the right amount.
Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain; so the LORD shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field. (KJV) Zechariah 10:1
The latter rains precede the time of harvest and determine how much water will be available during the dry season. Light rains brought drought and heavy rains damaged crops and caused floods. Again, the Lord blesses by giving "showers."

They Shall Beat Their Precipitations into Prophecies

If we separate the early and latter rains into separate symbols, then we need first to put them in context by realizing that the dry season represents a time of testing, refining, and judgment. We also need to take the rainy season as a unit and realize that it represents a time -- a season -- of blessing.

In this model that considers the whole year rather than a pair of snapshots, the early rains typify the return of blessings and renewed activity of the Holy Spirit following the repentance and holiness that testing and judgment teach.

The latter rains represent the preparation for harvest. They also represent provision for God's people during times of testing and correction, when the Holy Spirit acts more subtly.

Also note that Joel 2:23 is surrounded by a description of what follows a good spring rain: verdant pastures, trees and vines bearing fruit, and abundant wheat, grape, and olive harvests. Although verse 23 could be symbolic, it primarily means literal rain. You know. Drops of water falling from clouds.

No difference exists between the early, middle, and latter rains themselves except that one flows into the next. Unless you live in the mountains where it snows, rain is rain. You don't get Pentecostal Blessings at the early rain and Restoration Blessings at the latter rain. You get a continuous Church Age or Age of the Gentiles. The Church does not need to pass through infancy at its beginning and later return to its infancy before the Rapture.

Restorationism... of Context

Penn puts a lot of faith in his interpretation of Joel 2:23, so let's consider its context. Joel 2:1-11 describes a time when a great armed threat comes against Israel. In verses 12-17, God commands Israel to repent. In verses 18-27, God promises rescue if Israel obeys the call to repent. Then comes verse 28.
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. (KJV) Joel 2:28-29
The events in Joel 2:28-29 describe what happened at Pentecost and in the book of Acts. God poured out His Spirit not only upon judges, prophets, and kings, as before, but upon all races, both sexes, and all social classes. But note the keywords: "And it shall come to pass afterward...." If former rain and latter rain symbolized an age, as Penn and the Tea-costals claim, it happened before Pentecost.

If former and latter rains symbolize an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it seems likely that the former rains correlated to the events surrounding Christ's birth (Mary and Joseph's dream, Elizabeth's prophecy, prophesies at the Temple), and possibly Christ's ministry, were the former rains; and the events in the Apostolic age were the latter rains. Pentecost would have been the pinnacle of that.

If verses 28-29 describe the First Century and 30-31 describe the Tribulation, couldn't the rains happen again? Yes. Much of prophecy iterates.

However, the blessings of verses 18-27 follow the repentance of verses 12-17. Israel has yet to repent. We expect that Israel will continue rebellion against Messiah and will bow to Christ only during the Tribulation. If the rains symbolize anything like a second Pentecost, it will have to happen during or after the Tribulation.

Raining on Charismatics' Party

The former and latter rains probably refer to precipitation. If they do mean outpourings of the Holy Spirit, they happened a long ago and are not yet repeating.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Is "moderate Islam" an oxymoron?

I received an email, with the above title, that makes the case that all Muslims are extremists. I have to disagree. The key to understanding my position lies in a look at Judaism and Christianity.

Judaism has what Christians call "apostates," those who have left the faith; and it has "heretics," those who were raised outside the faith and either through error or through hostility, undermine the faith. At the extreme, some of these people remain religious and follow cults such as Kabbala or (from their perspective) our Yeshua. In the middle, the vast majority follow some semi-agnostic variety of Judaism that is Jewish primarily by culture. The real Jews are the Orthodox Jews, whose males often wear some element of a uniform such as yarmulkes or beards to identify themselves.

Christians are the same way. There are plenty of heretical sects such as Mormons, The Watchtower (Jehovah's [false] Witnesses, and Unitarians. In the middle are the mainline denominations that use a Christian vocabulary but have lost the Christian faith. For example, in the United Methodist Church, a poll many years ago revealed that half the pastors denied the virgin birth and the resurrection. With so many holes cut in their Bibles, it's no surprise that most "mainstream" Christian churches cooperate in the ecumenical movement, whose aim is to join with all theologies, even including New Age religions, animist, aboriginal religions, and "moderate" Islam -- essentially, a precursor to the One World Religion of Antichrist. I would put  the apostate Westboro Baptist Church in that category. I think you might be willing to put the Liberation Theology branch of Catholicism in that category, too.

The main thing that ties together all those "heretical" and "apostate" varieties of Jewish and Christian beliefs is their treacherous lip service to The Bible. They either believe God isn't god, or God doesn't care enough to communicate truthfully with man and then preserve that communication. Functionally, they are agnostics who prefer to err on the faith side instead of erring on the side of atheism. They contrast with evangelical or fundamentalist believers, and they make up the majority of Christians. (The sense with which I mean "evangelical or fundamentalist" includes those who have a strict faith in Catholicism.)

Islam has a similar distribution of faith. I don't know whether the majority of Muslims are functional agnostics the way most Christians are, although I've met a lot who are. I've met a few who might compare to mainstream Christians that border the Evangelicals. They retain the culture and worship; but in practice, they don't treat the Koran as a reliable revelation of their god.

I've described a perspective that views a moderate in anything as falling short of "true believer." For example, if you disagree with the Constitution and the reasoning behind it, you are fooling yourself if you claim to believe in Americanism and be a patriot. Similarly, "moderate Islam" is an oxymoron, just like "mainstream Christian" or "non-Orthodox Jew" are oxymorons. If the words apply to one, they have to apply to the others.

The difference is that, in Islam's case, moderation is a very, very good thing.

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Hyper Grace, Hyper Repentance, and the Middle Ground

Response to

Rooting Out Fuzzy Theology Behind the Hyper-Grace Message

DAVID & NANCY RAVENHILL
Charisma Magazine online 9:21AM EDT 4/2/2013
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/prophetic-insight/17255-rooting-out-fuzzy-theology-behind-the-hyper-grace-message


Two Types of Repentance

Most Charismatics Christians (they mistakenly call themselves Pentecostals) fail to distinguish between two types of repentance. Peter explicitly names the first type, and only regarding changing minds FROM rejection of Messiah TO receiving Him. The New Testament only describes the second type without naming it "repentance." We label the second type "repentance," but the label is not Biblical, although it works as long as one does not confuse the two.
Unfortunately, many people DO confuse the two.
The first repentance exchanges a broken-down death trap of a clunker for a brand new car. The dealer has stamped "IT IS FINISHED" on the papers, sent the clunker to the recyclers, and placed the new owner's name in the Lamb's Book of Car Registrations. That new car irrevocably belongs to the new owner.
The second repentance leads to cleaning up the car, driving on better roads in accordance with the Car Ownership Bible, repairing any damage and wear, and learning to use it for profitable purposes. The owner may dent the car, soil it, and fail to maintain it until it's no earthly good. A judge may tell the owner to take it off the road. But the car will always belong to the owner.

Confusing Grace and Repentance

Many people confuse the two. When the car gets dirty, they foolishly keep returning to the dealership to ask for the car again. As the author implies, however, they would be wise to return to the Dealer as many times as needed to maintain and learn more about their car.
Just as one extreme insults the blood of Christ by excusing sin that has been washed away, the other insults the blood by ignoring its sufficiency and attempting to re-apply it, even though "there remains no more offering for sin."

Contrasting the Dangers of the Two Hypers

If we wish to compare the dangers of the two, hyper repentance poses the greater danger. Lost people who have learned hyper repentance add self-reliance on repentance to reliance on Christ. Paul explicitly explains that grace and works mutually exclude each other. The Giver does not give gifts to those who ask for wages.
Therefore, both hypers present practical dangers to the saved, but hyper repentance adds an everlasting danger to the lost.
The irony lies not in the Ravenhill's attempt to correct hyper grace (for which I am grateful), but in that he does so from within the territory of hyper repentance.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Dating

My dad warned me against women who would take advantage of me, but he should have warned me against my own predatory, testosterone-poisoned mind.

In the natural mind, the goal of dating is "hooking up" or "scoring." This puts the wrong pressures on people who date. Reaching the goal sets you up for heartbreak and endangers the future of the relationship. Most dangerously, the carnal definition of "dating" risks creating an innocent human life whom you sentence to, at best, the stigma of illegitimacy, the emotional wounds of growing up fatherless, or at worst, the torture of being chemically burned to death or being vivisected, without even the benefit of anaesthetic, before birth.

Proper dating, however, can serve as a tool of socialization: learning self restraint, learning to enjoy, understand, and honor the opposite sex, and developing friendships.

I did not realize until I was around 25 that I needed to correct my goals in dating. I changed from looking for a wife to learning to enjoy women as friends, without the sexual or marital agenda.

Think of how men and women approach shopping. A woman enjoys shopping for the experience, whereas a man sets a goal of hunting down his prey, the specific item or deal. As I matured, I learned to shop at hardware stores just to get ideas and to see what's available for solving problems later. That's similar to the mindset one needs in dating.

Around my 27th birthday, I was praying for somebody to disciple. The Lord revealed to me that a man's ultimate disciple is (or ought to be) his wife. That was the end of that prayer request.

About a month later, God gave me that disciple. It did not take years of dating to know that she was the one. By the end of the year, we were married. It's been almost 30 years, now. The point is, a guy needs to look at dating as practice lessons in leadership, discipling, and responsibility, too.

With the right mindset about the purpose of dating, it becomes a lot easier to counter testosterone poisoning. Date to enjoy, to learn, to develop restraint. Let the goals come in their own time.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

What's So Bad about Being a Liberal?

First, not all that presents itself as conservative is actually conservative.

The Republican Party poorly represents conservatism. In fact, the GOP vacillates between moderately conservative on some issues and liberal economics and internationalism. I would guess that a third of the GOP is actually liberal, a third sticks a wet finger in the air, and a minority is actually conservative. For example, George W. Bush got tax cuts passed early in his administration, but cooperated with Democrat-led bail-outs of banks and GM.

So, let's not use Republicans to define the opposite of liberalism.

Second, being liberal is a good thing; and progress is good when the goal is good and the means are just. Being a liberal or a progressive, however, has a very peculiar meaning that does not necessarily connect to the root words, liberal and progress.

In my definitions (not necessarily standard, but offered for the sake of communication), conservatism seeks to preserve traditional values of liberty, self-reliance, and justice that does not respect persons.

Liberalism, or as the codeword is used today, progressivism, on the other hand, redefines a neutral term. Progress is good, right? Doesn't everybody love progress?

When you say change (as in hope and change) or progress, you have to pick a direction. You have to pick an origination and a destination. Depending on your definition of progress, it may or may not mean something good. The compass has only one North, but it has 359 degree-markers that point away from North.

Suppose your objective were to see far with an unobstructed view, so you climb the highest mountain. Progress would be pretty stupid if it meant trekking off that cliff to the West, wouldn't it? What else could you do? You could build a tower where you are, on your existing foundation. But would you leave the spot just because change is good?

The progressive compass points hard left, to 270 degrees, toward freedom for immorality and toward repression of traditional morality, toward collectivist statism, and toward "social justice" that bases rights on class, skin color, and sexual orientation.

American conservatives see progressive, liberal, socialist, and Marxist, as variations of a single philosophy. That philosophy derives from secular, materialist existentialism, in which interpretation is reality, objective truth is a myth, and the ultimate organism is the state.

Whereas Americanism states that authority flows from God through the People to the government, the progressive spectrum worships the Collective as the ultimate organism, whose people live at its pleasure. Americanism secures rights to the people and assigns responsibilities to the government, but progressivism gives the government rights and the people privileges. Conservative liberalism means personal tolerance and personal giving (to which the restaurant help will attest after any political convention), but Progressive liberalism forces promotion of the tolerable and gives at the expense of others.

If you believe black is white and right is wrong, then, I suppose, being a liberal is great.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

What Fact Check Sites Do You Prefer?


Do you prefer Snopes, Factcheck, what? Thanks, L
The fact-check and urban legends sites have helped me avoid embarrassing myself many times. There's nothing like forwarding a request from a 7-year-old cancer victim, only to find that he's now 27, has to pay for his own zip code, and wishes people would stop sending him post cards for his collection.
 
When it comes to political or social issues, however, I don't trust any of them.
  • PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersberg Times, an extreme left-wing newspaper. Click HERE for an example of how their Lie of the Year with which they smeared Mitt Romney turned out to be true.
      
  • FactCheck, FlackCheck, and FactCheckEd are a projects of Annenberg Public Policy Center and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. As board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama (or was he still Barry Soetoro?) helped fund "educational" activities of Bill Ayers, the 1960s terrorist who murdered at least one policeman with a bomb. What does that tell you about FactCheck's neutrality?
      
  • Snopes is funded by George Soros, a pro-socialist billionaire and currency manipulator who boasts that he has overthrown at least two European countries. The editors of Snopes are Obama bundlers and one has even held an appointment in the Obama administration.
      
  • The Fact Checker is a project of The Washington Post, a veritable media outlet for the Democrat Party.
No short-cut around visiting various sources and weighing the arguments. However, find the following sites quite helpful:
If you have a favorite site for checking the veracity of what you hear from the media or the politicians, please let us know in the comments.

Friday, January 11, 2013

When Liberals Get Tough on Crime....

I see a common trope in the news that I call, When Liberals 'get tough on crime....'
  • A kindergartener takes a 3/4" rubber GI Joe knife to school
  • Seven-year-olds shoot at each other with "finger guns" while playing cops and robbers
  • A teenage girl gives Midol to a classmate having menstrual cramps
...and they get suspensions and juvenile records.
  • Or an Olympic rifle champion gets arrested for having his target rifle (with trigger lock and a locked bag) locked in the trunk of his car when picking up his child from school.
  •  A man shoots an armed home invader and is sent to prison for illegally using a gun.
 When Liberals 'get tough on crime....' predicts the following:
  • SWAT teams knocking down the doors of anybody who has ever been diagnosed with depression or anxiety (information courtesy of Obamacare) and who has a record of having applied to purchase a firearm (information courtesy of background check applications)
  •  "Clean shoots" by police officers reacting to people startled out of their sleep and pointing flashlights at the intruders.
The second prediction reminds me of a little boy in Modesto, California, who was killed a few years ago by the "accidental discharge" of a shotgun pointed at his back while he laid, hands bound, on the floor during a legal (but mistaken) search of his grandfather's house.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

What difference does homosexual marriage make?

JP: What difference does homosexual marriage make? How would someone getting married to someone else affect you in anyway? Never understood why we as conservatives are so hell bent on less government, but then turn around and try to twist government into a watchdog for religious or social dogma. If we want less government, then stay out of the bedroom. What 2 consenting adults do, in their own time, is none of your, or my business.

"Twisting"? 
  • JP, you twist government into a watchdog for so-called homosexual rights. That twists government into a bigger government.
     
  • You want to twist homosexual acts (the bedroom privacy sham) into the same thing as homosexual marriage. That twists logic.
     
  • You twist government recognition of families that can create children into the same thing as a police state. That twists truth into a lie.
     
  • You twist the effects on insurance rates, employment rights, and freedom of association into having no affect on others. That twists short-sightedness into a gag order.
     
In short, your cliches are just plain twisted.

Friday, November 02, 2012

Obama: You Didn't Build That




People think that Me-me-me-my-my-my-I-I-I-bama's speech makes sense only because his speechwriters sugarcoat false reasoning. His error stems from the hidden socialist dogma that the business is not responsible for the roads, utilities, regulators, delivered in tones of fake outrage. Rather, he implies, the contributions of employees, utility workers, bureaucrats, etc, add significant value to the business. This assumption deceives for two reasons.

First, the business pays, through taxes to the government, wages to employees, interest and fees to lenders, and dividends to stockholders, for all those things Ibama says contributed to building the business. A new business may pay afterwards instead of before, but it still pays. It says that if you pay somebody to do make something you thought of, they get all the credit, as though you had nothing to do with it.

This couldn't be more wrong. If you buy a painting, you own it. If you buy a pizza, you have the right to eat it. Likewise, if you pay for all those ancillary contributions, then you get the credit for building the business.

Second, all those external factors would exist whether you build the business or don't. The contribution is mutual because, without the business, unused roads and utilities would be failures due to lack of use and would be failures due to lack of sponsorship. The electric company, the construction companies, employees, and bureaucrats profit from the presence of the business.

By Ibama's reasoning, when you build that business, you get to take credit for all those other things, too. But Ibama is a committed Marxist, so he loses his sense of reality amid all the big words and false intellectualism. "You didn't build that" is sophistic: It sounds brilliant, but when you slow down and think, you hear the foolishness.