Posts

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

/in , , , , /by
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex
Sexual Behavior

Dr. Francis S. Collins, current Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, asserted that homosexuality “is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA” and that “whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations . ” 6 Predisposition is not destiny.

The 2008 American Psychological Association’s brochure Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”7

GLBT-oriented men and women may not choose their attractions, but, short of force, they do choose their sex partners. From a national health perspective, the issue is not the origins of homosexual or GLBT orientation, but the consequences of engaging in such sexual activity.

The negative health consequences of alternative sexuality are made more understandable by first recognizing the nature of the sexual practices at issue. A 1979 survey in the book The Gay Report revealed the percentage of gay men who engaged in the following practices: 99% oral sex, 91% anal sex, 82% rimming (analingus), 22% fisting, 23% golden showers (urination on another), 4% scat (defecation on another). 8 The book’s two authors were of same-sex sexual attraction. A May 2011 medical journal article found that felching (“sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus”) was a sought-after practice in one-sixth of men’s profiles in “one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex.”9

The Gay Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site describes the following detrimental effects associated with same-sex sexual practice: higher rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, depression/anxiety, hepatitis, sexually transmitted illnesses (anal papilloma/HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia), certain cancers, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, eating disorders, and (in subsets) obesity.10

In February 2009 a Canadian GLBT group filed a human rights complaint against the Canadian government and Health Canada asserting that the Canadian GLBT population had poor statistics for life expectancy (twenty years short of standard), suicide, alcohol and illicit drug/substance abuse, cancer, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS, and depression. This is noteworthy in that it challenges the assertion of those claiming the negative health statistics attributed to individuals of GLBT orientation are merely a function of the lack of acceptance of such individuals, and that said statistics would improve with their increased acceptance. Canada provides a highly supportive government, celebration from liberal churches, and a public coerced into silence by hate speech codes, yet the poor health indicators for the GLBT populace remains. This demonstrates that acceptance and affirmation of same-sex sexuality is not the promised antidote for the problems inherent in GLBT sexuality…

The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site features the page Ten Things Lesbians Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider, which states the following: “Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.” And “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers.”23 (Christian Medical and Dental Associations)

6. Collins, F. S. (2006). The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief. (New York: Free Press) p. 257-263.
7. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx.
8. Jay, K., Young, A., The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979)
9. Klein, H. “Felching Among Men Who Engage in Barebacking (Unprotected Anal Sex).” Arch Sex Behav. 2011 May 14. [Epub ahead of print].
10. http://glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690 and http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.
23. http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

“Scientists say you’re wrong…”

That’s what you’ll hear from time to time when someone wants to try to ignore what’s obvious by insisting that “experts agree,” or “studies show,” or “recent polling indicates…”

There’s two kinds of information: The kind that brings clarity to the truth and the kind that distracts from it.

Subject matter experts and polling data can be very instrumental in helping to guide and reinforce sound judgement. But when you intentionally distort the criteria you use to gather and analyze your information, not only are your conclusions flawed, but they have the capacity to make a bad situation worse because of the credibility that’s associated with institutions that are assumed to be unbiased.

When it comes to transgenderism and homosexuality, you have a perspective that is supposedly informed by educated sources that insists these things are either normal or explained by anomalies that cannot be criticized, only accommodated.

Ryan T. Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He went on to receive his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.

In his book, “When Harry Became Sally,” he reveals the contradictions and the harm being suffered by those who are being encouraged to subscribe to am sustainable distortion of reality, all in the name of “science.”

He makes a great point by saying, “On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.” (Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones)

You can’t acknowledge Biology as a definitive science, and, at the same time, say that it becomes subjective, depending on the way a person feels. That is the fundamental claim of the “science” supporting transgenderism. In that context, transgenderism isn’t supported by science, as much as it’s refuted by it. It’s like a detective who isn’t looking for evidence, as much as they’re trying to create a verdict. In this instance, however “complex” the problem might be, you’re not bringing clarity to the truth as much as you’re distracting from it by insisting that a man can have a uterus.

How Does This Concern You?

Attempting to introduce a bottom line that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is toxic to some people because of the way submitting to the reality requires a willingness to be held accountable to something greater than yourself.

You can’t champion that kind of approach directly without sounding either selfish or foolish. But you can effectively avoid being revealed as not having a rational argument by accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being either overbearing, hypocritical,  or unethical. At that point, the focus isn’t on what’s being said as much as it’s the supposed character flaws of the one who’s speaking.

You see that approach manifested in several comments: “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” “I’m not hurting anyone,” or “How does this concern you?”

Embedded within each statement is a dynamic that implies truth is based on preferences more so than principles. Therefore, any attempt to assert a reality that cannot be altered based on a person’s disposition is an inappropriate act of aggression that is hurtful and disrespectful.

It can easily shut down any legitimate dialogue because of the way most will rush to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.

You can, however, counter those tactics by bringing the conversation back to the subject matter being discussed and emphasizing how the truth isn’t something you can ignore just because you don’t like the way it’s packaged.

For example, when someone wants to discredit your platform by suggesting that since you’re not being impacted,  you have to reason to be critical…

Same sex marriage – tf you’re not personally impacted by two people of the same gender getting married, why would you criticize their behavior?

You can respond by saying you don’t have to be robbed to oppose stealing. Just because someone’s not currently breaking into your home doesn’t mean that you need to refrain from condemning the idea that a person can take something that doesn’t belong to them.

Should they choose to say that since they’re not hurting anyone, any criticism is unnecessary, you can remind them that, more often than not, that phrase is used by people who’ve decided that regardless of the problems their choices produce, if it doesn’t matter to them, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. That’s not making an argument, they’re just declaring their indifference.

When it comes to homosexuality, you’ve got three things going on simultaneously.

1)  Not good for you

From a physiological standpoint, you have a lifestyle that represents a parade of STDs, some of which are lethal. You also can’t procreate, which qualifies your perversion, not only as something that’s detrimental to your health, but also as a complete departure from the way the human species is designed.

2) Bad for the team.

This is coming from SAGE Publications, the world’s largest independent scholarly publisher.  This captures both the physiological problems as well as the problems that impact society in general.

Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health.

Growing up with gay parents:
What is the big deal?

A ground-breaking study from the University of Texas at Austin (Regnerus 20121) found that young-adult children (ages 18–39) of parents who had same-sex relationships before the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems.

The study is noteworthy for several reasons:

(1) his study sample was large, representative, and population-based (not a small, self-selected group);
(2) Regnerus studied the responses of adult children rather than asking same-sex parents to describe how their young dependent children are doing; and
(3) he was able to draw comparisons on up to 80 measures for children who had lived with (or had) parents who fell into one of eight categories—intact families with both biological parents who were married to each other, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, heterosexual single parents, parents who later divorced, cohabiting parents, parents who adopted the respondent, and other (such as a deceased parent).

The children of lesbians and gays fared worse than those in intact heterosexual families on 77 of the 80 outcome measures. Exceptions related only to the voting habits of children with gay fathers, and alcohol use by children of lesbian mothers (National Library of Medicine).

1. Regnerus M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41: 752–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3) You have to pretend there are no rules.

When you’re a part of a team, you have a responsibility to contribute in a way that benefits the team as a whole. You don’t just wear the jersey, you play in a way that helps move the ball down the field. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no rules and you can play however you want to, that puts an unnecessary strain on the team’s ability to succeed. In that context, you’re not incapable, you’re just selfish.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute will not confess to being selfish, however. Instead, they’ll insist that their rights are being violated – that they are victims of an intolerant society. They won’t admit to being irresponsible or negligent, instead they’ll say that there are no rules and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or cruel.

The problem with that mindset is that it ignores reality. They want to pretend that they can speak a standard into existence, simply because they want it to be true, rather than submitting to a standard because it is true.

The result is a compromised collective. It’s not about a lack of variety or an intolerant authority, as much as it’s an unnecessary increase in pain and problems that stem from a resolve to reduce truth to a tradition.

The LGBQT community requires that husbands and wives, along with moms and dads have to be redefined as social constructs as opposed to fundamental institutions. They dismiss the consequences of their perversion as “risks” and any objective evaluation of their behavior as “discrimination.” This is the only path that can be taken if their approach to the human experience is going to make any sense, and it is the same kind of path that is used by everyone that wants to normalize a flawed way of thinking: Replace what’s real with a manufactured reality where there are no bottom lines and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

The Fundamental Dispute

At the end of the day, there’s more to these disagreements than a competing collection of facts and studies. The fundamental dispute comes down to how you define truth. You define it either according to what’s real or how you feel. If you define it according to how you feel, you’re inevitably restricted to what amounts to an unsustainable hypocrisy. If you’re determined to justify yourself by saying that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then you can’t logically disagree with someone and say they’re wrong if there is no right or wrong.

LGBTQ, Socialism, ProChoice – all of these things depend on a perspective that maintains the individual as his own bottom line. Any policy or personality that threatens the authority of the person who’s empowered themselves to dictate the difference between right and wrong is going to be first criticized, then ignored, and then, silenced.

You don’t counter that kind of agenda without incorporating an approach that addresses the philosophical poison that refuses to acknowledge the boundaries of truth, common sense, and sound reasoning. You’re not questioning their logic, you’re challenging their authority and apart from asking those questions that reveal the self-defeating aspect of their philosophical foundation, in their mind, they’re either different or they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
Same Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order
Are Some People Born Gay?
Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World

According to What You Prefer

/in , , , /by
A question on Quora came up that asked how you can support President Trump as a Christian.
As you can imagine, there are people, both unbelievers and believers, who are hell bent on insisting that you can’t call yourself a Christian if you support President Trump.
I weighed in because I believe in the empty tomb. And I also believe that you don’t necessarily support a personality as much as you support the policies that he champions.
But that doesn’t register with some people. They’re determined to believe that anyone with a manner and a past that doesn’t line up with what they would prefer is not only unsuitable for any leadership position, but anyone who supports such an individual is obviously not a believer.
Here’s the last response I got:
…the Word of God says friendship with the world is enmity with God! That we’re either hot or cold, lukewarm individuals He said He’d spit them out! There is no way ANY child of the Holy and Righteous God can support DJT and what he’s doing and how he’s doing it! He is like his father the devil and is doing his father’s bidding! And I don’t use the word Christian anymore because some have just muddled it up😟! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Here’s how I responded:
Remember how Jesus was tempted? Satan actually quoted Scripture, but he took it out of its original context. And my relationship with Christ is based on the empty tomb, not the way I vote (Rom 10:9–10).
That’s the first thing…
Secondly, I don’t support adultery or vulgarity. But that didn’t stop me from serving in the Marine Corps or pursuing a career as a national recording artist or being employed in general. If you extend your rationale to it’s inevitable conclusion, you don’t have a mission field, you have a support group (1 Cor 5:9–10).
Third, my support of President Trump is based on his policies, not his theology. King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).
Fourth, if you refuse to engage the world as it is and support those who God is using, despite their manner or their past, you’re not being Christlike, you’re being disobedient. (Mk 9:39–40; 1 Cor 5:9–10). What makes sin heinous is not so much the sin, as much as it’s Who you’re sinning against. From that standpoint, if we use your approach, no one is qualified to lead. And I’m not saying that you excuse bad behavior by saying “We’re all sinners.” I’m saying you don’t dismiss however God is working simply because it’s not packaged according to what you prefer.

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

/in , , , /by

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences  are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

 

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

 

Division

/in , , /by

People who complain about Division fall into one of two categories.

  • Those who focus on the presence of tension.
  • Those who focus on the absence of truth.

People who lament the presence of tension don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated. By pretending to be in pain, they don’t have to prove that they’re right because you can’t criticize or correct someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So, instead of focusing on what’s causing the division, as far as determining who’s right and who’s wrong, the truth is discarded in favor of simply insisting that we all just need to get along and silencing those who dare to assert the reality of a bottom line.

The Bible says…

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:17-19)

You don’t resolve a dispute by pretending it doesn’t exist. Nor do you solve a moral dilemma by suggesting that there are no principles only preferences.

You don’t use legal sounding verbiage to validate a lie. Rather, you use the power of truth to enforce the law.

But those who are a law unto themselves will insist that there are no standards, only situations. They need a toxic and nonsensical environment in order to maintain the idea that they are accountable to no one other than themselves. In order to distract attention from the moral and practical ruin that inevitably occurs, they position themselves as victims of an oppressive society and they call it…

…division.

What is Truth?

/in , , , , , /by

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.” But if the world you live in is a manufactured reality where you are the gauge by which all things are measured than all the boundaries that are otherwise established by logic, the rule of law, and even common sense are completely abolished and the only thing that remains is what best promotes the idea that no one can tell you what to do.

Bear in mind, the question isn’t whether or not you have a choice, as much as it’s whether or not you have the authority to redefine the difference between right and wrong. Your “right to be happy” is now the clause you use to justify stripping the concept of Truth of all its original meaning and power and reducing it to nothing more than a word you use to certify yourself as your own absolute.

Listen to the way a Liberal attempts to defend the way they think.

You can’t force your beliefs on me

If there is no fixed point of reference, then the Truth is nothing more than what you want to believe. You can’t point out the flaws in a Liberal’s argument because, in the absence of a standard that exists independently of a way you want to think or behave, there is nothing to correct.

You have no evidence

However irrefutable your proof may be, it can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be either unreliable or irrelevant. Not because of its lacking in substance, but because of the way a Liberal has empowered themselves with the ability to acknowledge only what they want to see.

White Supremacist / Nazi / Right Wing Extremism / Fascist

When a Liberal is confronted with a platform that threatens to reveal both the philosophical and practical dead ends represented by the way they think, they attack the character of the one who is speaking in order to distract from the substance of what’s being said.

Constitutional Crisis / Rule of Law

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law. If the Truth has been drained of all of its meaning and objectivity, than a crime doesn’t have to be committed, it can simply be spoken into existence. And what is illegal can be exonerated simply by changing the way in which it’s evaluated.

You can’t change the way a Liberal thinks in the context of a debate, because there is a philosophical investment represented by the way they process themselves and the world around them. That investment is not something you overcome with an argument. That’s not to suggest you shouldn’t be prepared to defend what you believe, but you want to be aware of the territory that you’re in because there’s more to this than statistics and subject matter experts.

You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear and a Liberal can rightfully accuse you of being no different than those you would criticize if you come across as someone whose principles are nothing more than personal preferences.

The key is to focus on the authentic definition of Truth.

“…that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

The Greek word for Truth as it’s used in Scripture is alethia (uh-LEH-thee-uh) which means “…cannot be hidden.”

The Truth can’t be hidden. Regardless of how it either resonates with your preferences or irritates your sensibilities, the Truth simply “is.”

You ask those questions that can only be answered in a way that acknowledges the Truth.

  • If you have an abortion, does your baby get a chance to live?
  • Do you have the right to give away other people’s money?
  • Can you enter the US legally without going through Customs?

That’s the way Christ did it in the New Testament and it’s an effective way of circumventing all the tactics that are otherwise deployed for the sake of keeping the conversation focused on what’s what’s preferred as opposed to what’s True.

It’s not what you think, it’s not how you feel, and it’s not necessarily what you heard.

What’s the Truth?

And before you try to answer that question, how to you define Truth?

Start there and then you’ll have a better idea of who you’re talking to and what’s going to make an impact.

Garcia

/in , /by

You’ve got to ask the right questions in order to arrive at the right conclusions.

1) Is Kilmar Albrego Garcia an illegal immigrant?

If the answer to that question is, “Yes,” then he is subject to deportation. He admitted to being here illegally as is documented on the Homeland Security report dated April 16, 2025.

2) Is he entitled to a hearing or can he be deported immediately?

Illegal immigrants are allowed a hearing, unless their conduct is criminal and / or they represent a threat to national security, which is just one of the “classes of deportable aliens” documented in 8 USC 1227. At that point, the Attorney General can deport them immediately.

3) Is he a member of MS-13, a Mexican gang that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the current administration?

MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization in February, 2025. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was validated as a member of MS-13 in October of 2019, according to a Department of Homeland Security Report.

In addition, when Garcia was arrested, he was apprehended alongside two other MS-13 gang members. Two other judges have confirmed him being affiliated with MS-13, Intelligence reports that he was involved in human trafficking and, at one point, his wife petitioned that a restraining order be filed against him.

All of this qualifies Garcia as a criminal and is subject to be deported immediately. The only “due process” that he qualifies for is immediate deportation according to the authority vested in the Attorney General.

4) Is this a Constitutional Crisis?

President Trump’s Executive Order isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis,” as much as it’s a restoration of the legal guardrails designed to promote national security and define the rights and responsibilities of both citizens and non-citizens.

These laws have been in place for decades. United States Code 1325 identifies the penalties for attempting to enter the United States illegally and was established in 1925. The authority of the Attorney General to immediately remove illegal immigrants was defined in 1952.

5) Is President Trump Ignoring the Supreme Court?
A) Things Have Changed Since 2019

The Supreme Court decision stated that Garcia was wrongfully deported because of a 2019 court order that prevented him from being sent back to El Salvador.

This is a part of that ruling…

The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” The Government has not challenged the validity of that order. KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, ET AL. [Apr 10, 2025])

Two things stand out immediately.

I) Garcia Isn’t Just an Illegal Immigrant, He’s an International Terrorist

First, the government has evidence that Garcia is a part of MS-13 and to say that his arrest is “warrantless” and there is no basis in law for Garcia being deported represents an insane disregard for the obvious.

The press continually uses the word “alleged,” as though the evidence that identifies Garcia as a member of MS-13 is somehow speculative. His tattoos are readily recognized by those who are familiar with Mexican gang culture as indicators of his being a member of MS-13. It’s not the kind of thing that you dismiss by saying, “…they are interpreted that way” or the photo showing Garcia’s hand was Photoshopped.

Beyond that, however, you have the report detailing Garcia being arrested in March of 2019:

On 03/28/2019 at approximately 1427 hours, Detective ______ with the Hyattsville City Police observed four individuals loitering in the parking lot of the Home Depot located at 3301 East West Highway in Hyattsville, MD 20782. As Det. ______ approached the individuals, two of the individuals reached into their waistbands and discarded several unknown items under a parked vehicle. All four individuals were stopped by Hyattsville officers. Det. _____ immediately recognized Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO aka “Bimbo” as a member of the MS-13 Sailors Clique. Two small plastic bottles containing marijuana was located on scene. All four individuals were transported back to District I for interviews.

Member of the Prince George’s County Gang Unit MS-13 Intelligence Squad have encountered Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO on multiple occasions. He has an extensive criminal history for multiple assault, concealing dangerous weapons, burglary , and many other criminal offenses. He has also been found guilty of gang participation in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in December of 2018. Offices know HERNANDEZ-ROMERO to be an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique with the rank of “Observacion” and moniker of “Bimbo.”

Officers also interviewed Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ. During the interview officers observed tattoos of skulls covering their eyes, ears, and mouth. Officers know these kind of tattoos are indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The tattoos are meant to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” He also had a tattoo of a devil on his left leg which officers know only higher ranking MS-13 gang members are allowed to get a tattoo with the horns. This represents power with MS-13. Officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ is an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker “Manico.”

Officers then interviewed Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA. During the interview, officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls had and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing is to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Western clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker of “Chele.”

Officers interviewed Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA. During the interview officers were unable to determine his gang afflilation. Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue to monitor Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA for further gang activity. He was sent on his way without further incident.

This report doesn’t mention Garcia’s tattoos. It goes beyond any tats and instead references an informant who identifies Garcia, not just as a member of MS-13, but someone who has an official rank within its membership.

Secondly, the 2019 court order doesn’t say that Garcia shouldn’t be deported. He was to be removed from the US based on his being a member of MS-13 and a flight risk. Rather, it simply says that he shouldn’t be deported to El Salvador.

DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. CERNA

On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador.

8.During the course of his proceedings, Abrego-Garcia remained in ICE custody because the Immigration Judge (IJ) with the Executive Office for Immigration Review denied Abrego-Garcia bond at a hearing on April 24, 2019, citing danger to the community because “the evidence show[ed] that he is a verified member of [Mara Salvatrucha] (‘MS-13’)]” and therefore posed a danger to the community. The IJ also determined that he was a flight risk. Abrego-Garcia appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this bond decision in an opinion issued on December 19, 2019, citing the danger Abrego-Garcia posed to the community.

9.On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland)

The news has repeatedly referred to as an “administrative error” on the part of the Trump administration. The “error” comes from the sworn testimony of Robert Cerna, the ICE Field Officer responsible for Garcia’s deportation.

Cerna overlooking the restraint that would’ve prevented Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in 2019 doesn’t apply in the same way in 2025. Since then, Garcia has been defined as an MS-13 gang member, not just according to his tattoos and his ballcap, but also by two judges. This supersedes the court order issued in 2019, as is explained by Tom Holman:

“I don’t accept the term ‘error’ in Abrego Garcia,” Homan said. “There was an oversight, there was a withholding order. But the facts surrounding the withholding order had changed. He is now a terrorist, and the gang he was fearing, from being removed from El Salvador, no longer exists.”1

Conclusion

Enforcing immigration law was neither the goal nor the priority of the Biden administration. However illegal immigration translates to a host of problems ranging from economic instability to national security risks, the Democrat party sees them as as voters that can conceivably change the political demographics of the country and help sustain the strength of the Liberal element within the US. Hence, the verbiage used by some in Congress to describe illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers” and others in the media referring to them as “undocumented immigrants.” By positioning illegals as victims and the Democrat party as those who are “trying to help,” the security, sanctity, and the solvency of the country are compromised in the name of a false compassion that is nothing more than a dirty quest for power.

Here’s the bottom line:

  • Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn’t just an illegal immigrant, he’s an international terrorist.
  • Because he’s an international terrorist, the only due process that he’s entitled to is an expedited deportation
  • The Supreme Court is basing its position on an Immigration Law that says the Attorney General can’t deport an alien to their original country if by doing so it would put that alien’s life or freedom in jeopardy because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or a political opinion (USC 1231 (b) (3)(a)).
    But since then, Garcia has been identified as a member of a terrorist organization and no longer qualifies for that provision and he is therefore deportable (see USC 1227 Deportable aliens (a)(4)(B)).
  • Those who say the evidence that identify him as a member of MS-13 is “thin” or “unsubstantiated,” are overlooking a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence as well as having been positively identified by a reliable informant.

To quote DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia Mclaughlin…

“I think this illegal alien is exactly where he belongs—home in El Salvador. He was in our country illegally, he is from El Salvador, was born in El Salvador, and, oh, the media forgot to mention: He is a MS-13 gang member. The media would love for you to believe that this is a media darling, that he is just a Maryland father. Osama Bin Laden was also a father, and yet, he was not a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists. He should be in this El Salvador prison, a prison for terrorists, and I hope he will remain there.”

1.”Trump “border czar” Tom Homan says Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador wasn’t a mistake”, CBS News, By Adam Thompson, Updated on: April 29, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/border-czar-tom-homan-abrego-garcia-maryland-el-salvador-trump/, accessed May 17, 2025

Speaking Up When It Matters

/in , , , /by

It amazes me how some want to believe that you can separate church and state. Our Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in place, not to restrict Christianity’s influence on government, but to prevent the government from influencing Christianity. That was the culture back then and that was the foundation upon which our country was built. Don’t forget that every reference to “Providence” and “Creator” and the “Supreme Judge of the Universe” in the Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George who was, not only King of England, he was also the head of the Anglican Church. He didn’t process those titles as references to a generic “higher power.” He heard them as references to God as He’s revealed in Scripture.

Every form of government is ultimately based on the way that system defines a human being. You are either sorted according to a human convention or you are created in the image of your Heavenly Father.

There’s only two options.

And if you want to argue that there is more than one religion, again, you’ve only got two religions in that every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something to merit the favor of your preferred deity (Gen 3:5). Christianity, on the other hand, says that the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

Ephesians 6:12 says that the “struggle” is always spiritual. When you look at the Democrat talking points, you see things that are contrary to God’s Word and, as a believer, you have a responsibility to point that out (Eph 5:11). You want to do it right (Eph 4:15). No one wants to listen to a jerk. But to remain silent, or to be hesitant, or to be less than substantial in the way you communicate is not piety.

It’s cowardice.

Here’s what I’m thinking…

When Nehemiah was in charge of building the wall, at one point he had the Israelites work with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other (Neh 4:17-19). They weren’t doubting God for His Protection. Rather, they were being wise in the way they were prepared to defend what God had entrusted to them.

As far as “division” or “differences” are concerned, Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 11:19. He mentions how those differences reveal who has God’s approval. In other words, those disparities reveal who it is that’s championing the Truth as opposed to their own preferences.

1 Chron 12:32 describes the men of Issachar as those who, “…understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” Defending the practical and economical wisdom of tariffs, promoting the morality of preventing males from competing in women’s sports, and pointing out how homosexuality represents a lifestyle that is contrary to the way the human species is designed, is not a defense of the gospel, nor does it change the heart of the one who’s determined to be their own bottom line (Jer 17:8-10; Eph 6:12).

But God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1), there’s only two genders (Gen 1:27), homosexuality is a pointless perversion (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27), and Socialism inevitably translates to a violation of 2 Thess 3:10.

People who say, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” are indirectly forcing their beliefs on everyone else because they don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated (2 Cor 4:4). They’re not interested in determining if what you’re saying is True, they just want to get their own way by demonizing you.

Ephesians 4:15 says to, “…speak the truth in love.” If anyone is going to notice that the tomb is empty, you witness needs to be evident in everything you say, think, and do (Col 3:17) and that includes being politically astute and speaking up when it matters.

Donald Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s so much more to the dialog pertaining to President Trump than just who he is as a person.

It comes down to idealogies and however you want to criticize or applaud the man, what you’re inevitably evaluating is a political philosophy and not just a personality.

Below you’ll see several links to a number of different resources that don’t try to minimize his faults or overlook his mistakes. Rather, they look at the tactics used to undermine his administration in order to demonize the foundation represented by our national motto.

It’s a challenging conversation but a necessary debate. What’s at stake is more than the political currency of a single politician. Rather, it’s the substance of what makes us who we are as a country and guarantees both your safety and our prosperity.

Welcome!

 

type title description
video Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump Regardless of how determined you may be in your resolve to dislike Trump, this video details that reasons why the Republican political philosophy translates to better results because it’s based on something more substantial than personal preferences.
website Trump’s Lies In 2017, the New York Times published a full, front page article entitled, “Trump’s Lies..” It listed 100 lies the President supposedly told. This website goes through every “lie” and shows that it’s NYT that is either exaggerating or flat out lying and not President Trump.
article What Just Happened? To understand the outcome of the election, you have to be able to pass a simple vocabulary test. To prepare, let’s walk through a couple of terms…
article Thank You, President Trump! An article printed originally in the Boston Herald that listed President Trump’s accomplishments during his term as President in 2016.
article A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I To say that God doesn’t care about Politics is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates all governments to begin with. And while that’s obviously a nonsensical disposition, you also have the false premise that says that God doesn’t care about the laws of a nation and how they either promote what strengthens an individual or tears them down (Prov 28:2-3, 28; 29:2, 4). He does care and He expects His people to be engaged (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2).
article A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II The Bible says to “test the spirits” and we need to apply that to what it is we allow into our inbox by popping the hood, keeping your balance and kicking the tires.
article A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III Current events are often presented using a series of tactics you’ll be confronted with when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.
article A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV A look at the last three of the five tactics referenced in Part III and then looking at the importance of evaluating a tree according to its fruit more so than its appearance. Here we go!
article The Progressive Pentagon – A Practical Guide to Fake News There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide. I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends it’s stance and attacks it’s opponents.

It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant.