Daily Archives: July 13, 2018

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Attacks Trump – Says Claim that Migrants to Blame for Crime “Preposterous” — The Gateway Pundit

London Mayor Sadiq Khan attacked President Dondald Trump on Friday for linking rising crime rates to increased immigration.

Russia Today reported:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has branded US President Donald Trump’s linking of rising crime rates in the capital to African immigrants as “preposterous.” It follows Trump’s criticism of Khan’s handling of crime and terrorist attacks.

“To blame this on immigration from Africa is preposterous and we should call him out when he does so,” Khan, speaking on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme on Friday morning, said.

Khan made the remarks after Trump doubled down on his claims that the mayor had failed to do enough to protect London from Islamist terrorist attacks.

In a bombshell interview, which was published in The Sun tabloid newspaper on Friday, Trump said: “I think he has done a very bad job on terrorism. I think he has done a bad job on crime, if you look, all of the horrible things going on there, with all of the crime that is being brought in.”

It is the latest spat between the president and mayor, who have been at loggerheads ever since Trump publicly berated Khan for saying there is “no reason to be alarmed” by an increased and armed police presence in the city in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack in June 2017.

A German study linked incoming migrants to the current crime wave.

A 2018 UK study saw a correlationbetween increasing immigration to increased crime in Britain.

via London Mayor Sadiq Khan Attacks Trump – Says Claim that Migrants to Blame for Crime “Preposterous” — The Gateway Pundit

JULY 13 MANY PRACTICE FRAUD UPON THEIR OWN SOULS

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 JOHN 1:8

Of all forms of deception self-deception is the most deadly, and of all deceived persons the self-deceived are the least likely to discover the fraud!

The reason for this is simple. When a man is deceived by another he is deceived against his will. He is contending against an adversary and is temporarily the victim of the other’s guile. Since he expects his foe to take advantage of him he is watchful and quick to suspect trickery.

With the self-deceived it is quite different. He is his own enemy and is working a fraud upon himself. He wants to believe the lie and is psychologically conditioned to do so. He does not resist the deceit but collaborates with it against himself. There is no struggle, because the victim surrenders before the fight begins. He enjoys being deceived!

It is altogether possible to practice fraud upon our own souls and go deceived to judgment. The farther we push into the sanctuary the greater becomes the danger of self-deception. The deeply religious man is far more vulnerable than the easygoing fellow who takes his religion lightly.

Before a man’s heart has been wholly conquered by the Spirit of God, he may be driven to try every dodge to save face and preserve a semblance of his old independence. This is always dangerous and if persisted in may prove calamitous![1]


[1] Tozer, A. W., & Smith, G. B. (2015). Evenings with tozer: daily devotional readings. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

5 Of The Most Controversial Moments From Peter Strzok’s Chaotic Testimony To Congress | Zero Hedge

“Agent Strzok, are you starting to understand why some folks out there don’t believe a word you say?”

Authored by Michael Snyder via The American Dream blog,

On Thursday, Peter Strzok finally received his well-deserved congressional grilling, and it was quite a chaotic affair. Over nearly ten hours, there were shouting matches between Strzok and congressional Republicans, there were shouting matches between Republicans and Democrats, and there were quite a few moments that none of us will ever forget. It was a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, and the meeting room was absolutely packed. More than 70 members of the House were in attendance, and many came ready with some very pointed questions.

The following are five of the most controversial moments from Peter Strzok’s ten hour testimony to Congress…

#5 Bob Goodlatte asks Strzok how he can “smell” Trump supporters at a Wal-Mart in southern Virginia…

#4 John Ratcliffe confronts Strzok about using “official FBI phones” on “official FBI time” to talk to Lisa Page about “stopping Trump” and “impeaching Trump”. The following comes from CNN

“When you said you never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times, except for hundreds of times a day where I went back and forth, expressing my personal opinions about ‘f’ing’ Trump and stopping Trump and impeaching Trump on official FBI phones, on official FBI time,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas.

“Agent Strzok, are you starting to understand why some folks out there don’t believe a word you say?” he added.

#3 Darrell Issa forces Strzok to read back some of the anti-Trump text messages that he sent to Lisa Page…

#2 Trey Gowdy uses his extensive legal skills to absolutely grill Strzok about his contradictory statements…

#1 Congressman Gohmert went where nobody else was willing to go when he asked Strzok “how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her about Lisa Page?” The following comes from CNN

“I’ve talked to FBI agents around the country. You’ve embarrassed them; you’ve embarrassed yourself,” Gohmert said. “And I can’t help but wonder, when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her about Lisa Page?”

You can see video of this exchange between Strzok and Congressman Gohmert right here

Wow. Congressman Gohmert went there. pic.twitter.com/RWjayDOn7J

— Scott Whitlock (@ScottJW) July 12, 2018

If it was virtually anyone else, I would feel very badly for them.

But if this is the worst that Strzok gets, then he will be getting off very easy.

Strzok definitely qualifies as a member of “the deep state”, and it is very rare for anyone in “the deep state” to be held accountable on this level.

We are in a struggle for the soul of our government, and if we ever hope to turn things around we have got to clean out swamp creatures such as Peter Strzok. I believe that Thursday’s hearing was certainly a step in the right direction, and hopefully Congress will do much more to restore our faith in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies.

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-13/5-most-controversial-moments-peter-strzoks-chaotic-testimony-congress

10 Ways DOJ Abused Its Authority When It Spied On Trump’s Campaign

New facts indicate Obama administration officials and career FBI and DOJ employees misled the FISA court in more ways than previous thought.

Last Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) missed another deadline to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The DOJ’s latest episode of stonewalling prompted HPSCI Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) to suggest that President Donald Trump intervene.

While the DOJ had turned over some of the subpoenaed information, Nunes told Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro that the House still does not have critical documents detailing the FBI’s use of informants to spy on the Trump campaign prior to the official launch of the Russia collusion investigation, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane.

Nunes also suggested Trump declassify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain a court order to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. “I think the FISA is totally fraudulent, 100 percent fraudulent,” the California congressman declared, adding that by releasing the FISA applications, the public can assess whether Obama officials and career DOJ and FBI employees abused the FISA process or whether seeking a FISA warrant on Page was justified, as Democrats continue to maintain. Declassifying the FISA applications will help us answer “who’s telling the truth,” Nunes said.

Nunes isn’t wrong. But rather than wait for President Trump to act, the HPSCI chair should consider drafting a second memorandum as a follow-up to the memorandum released in February. While the February memo exposed several misleading facts and material omissions in the Page FISA applications, since then more details have emerged, and these new facts indicate Obama administration officials and career FBI and DOJ employees misled the FISA court in more ways than previously thought.

Before looking at the new evidence of abuse of the FISA process, here’s a quick refresher on FISA, the background to the Page FISA applications, and the misleading facts and material omissions identified in Nunes’ February memo.

— Read on thefederalist.com/2018/07/13/10-ways-doj-abused-authority-spied-trumps-campaign/

5 Takeaways From The Hearing With FBI Counterintel No. 2 Peter Strzok

An embattled FBI official who led investigations into both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump testified in a cantankerous open hearing on the Hill yesterday. Peter Strzok, formerly the second in command of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, lost his position after texts he exchanged on government systems with his also-married lover and colleague Lisa Page revealed extreme bias against President Trump and his voters.

Yesterday’s joint hearing in front of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees was the first public hearing Congress held with the official who launched the Russia probe two years ago. Here are a few key takeaways from that hearing.

1. This Is What DOJ Obstruction Looks Like

The country is two years into the FBI’s probe of whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election. Not a single charge has been brought by the FBI or by the Office of Special Counsel alleging collusion or treason or anything close to the charges that supposedly necessitated this investigation.

Congress began asking some questions of the FBI and Department of Justice about how it was conducting the investigation. Through the oversight process, Americans learned that the infamous “dossier” that laid out a case of collusion was secretly bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. This dossier was used to secure wiretaps against Trump associates (other surveillance methods, including human informants, were also used).

The dossier was fed to both the FBI and State Department. Top intelligence officials were leaking about the Russia investigation to CNN and other media outlets. A top DOJ official’s wife worked for the firm that Hillary Clinton hired to run the “Russia” operation. That firm fed their opposition research to the FBI through him.

The Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees, along with the Senate Homeland Security committee, House Oversight, and House Government Reform committees, have worked hard to uncover these details and in the face of unprecedented obstruction. Requests for documents are met with stonewalling, delays, redactions, leak campaigns, and outright refusals. Threats of subpoenas are routinely made to force even minor compliance.

Despite the length of yesterday’s hearing, congressional overseers were able to elicit almost no substantive answers to the questions they asked. Strzok claimed he was not answering questions because the Department of Justice told him not to answer questions. No matter the question, Strzok refused to answer any question about his role in the Russia probe, with almost no exceptions.

The hearing was a public revelation of the stonewalling and obstruction the DOJ has enforced against congressional oversight.

2. Strzok Somehow Came Off Even Worse Than He Did In His Texts

Despite his significant role in the Russia and Clinton investigations, the only picture Americans had formed of Strzok was based on his text messages. He spoke of his loathing of President Trump, Trump’s voters, and congressional oversight. He talked of stopping Trump’s election, of insurance policies to deal with his candidacy, and fantasies of impeachment.

The texts were between him and his also married colleague, another top-ranking official in the Department of Justice. The hearing demonstrated the texts were at best an accurate reflection of the man who wrote them. If anything, the texts were understated.

Strzok chose to present himself to the world as a smug, arrogant, and peevish man. He was defensive and condescending. His answers were almost mind-blowingly implausible. It wasn’t just that he lacked good judgment or even-handedness. It’s that he didn’t seem to have a grip on reality. He kept saying he wasn’t biased, when his bias is indisputable.

He told investigators that he would like to answer a question but that his attorneys weren’t letting him. If they later told him he could answer, he’d say he didn’t remember. He implausibly said that his affair didn’t put him at risk of compromise, in contrast to his agency’s policy.

3. Democrats Run Interference

Almost immediately, Democrats on the House and Government Reform Committee attempted to shut down the hearing. When that failed, they resorted to near-constant parliamentary inquiries and objections. At one point they actually cheered and applauded Strzok, despite his ethical failings and poor judgment, which have threatened the entire Russia investigation. The man is under internal investigation for his behavior. Yet one Democrat said he’d like to offer Strzok a Purple Heart, a military decoration awarded to those wounded or killed while serving in the U.S. military.

As silly as this behavior may seem, it indicated how Democrats hope to handle all oversight of the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Russia probe. The message went out that every hearing will be a clown-show, even by the typical grandstanding attendant to congressional hearings. Democrats on oversight committees have fought transparency of the Russia investigation, portraying it as obstruction of a legitimate probe. All signs indicate that opposition to oversight will continue.

4. DOJ Clearly Hiding Its Relationship With Democratic-Funded Smear Group

The FBI and DOJ frequently instructed Strzok not to answer substantive questions from Republicans. One line of inquiry pursued by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was regarding communication between the FBI and Fusion GPS, the group that concocted the “Russia” dossier and messaging plan on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Strzok generally declined to answer questions.

But Strzok did admit that Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS operative Nellie Ohr, funneled documents to the FBI related to the Russia case. He refused to say what those documents were. Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked DOJ to declassify the dozen reports summarizing Ohr’s 12 information-sharing meetings with the FBI.

The FBI used Fusion GPS-hired Christopher Steele until the end of October, when he was terminated for lying about his leaks to the media. But Fusion and Steele were able to continue funnelling information to the FBI using colleague Nellie Ohr and her husband Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official who worked closely with acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

When the Russia story first broke, Americans didn’t realize that the dossier was a secret Clinton/DNC operation, or that the unverified opposition research was sent to various Obama officials in multiple agencies. Americans didn’t know that a top DOJ official was married to an employee of the group that created the dossier, or that he was used to get information into the government.

5. The Mystery Of Why The Investigation Started

Strzok said he didn’t see the dossier until mid-September. His electronic communication that started the probe didn’t include official intelligence. Given the politically explosive nature of the investigation, the FBI and DOJ have failed to explain what they were thinking in starting a probe of the Trump campaign.

The entire investigation has major problems from start to finish, whether it’s the use of a dossier that Steele created and Bruce Ohr sent to the FBI, or the fact that Strzok ended up having to be removed from the investigation for his obvious and extreme bias. Strzok said Mueller never asked him about his texts, and didn’t seek to find out more from him about what his “insurance policy” or “impeachment” rhetoric meant.

Again, the hearing was less than substantive because of the ongoing obstruction and stonewalling campaign engaged in by DOJ. That was itself instructive.
— Read on thefederalist.com/2018/07/13/5-key-takeaways-from-strzok-hearing/

NYT Admits “Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For” | Zero Hedge

“Mr. Trump even signed on to a tough statement directed at Russia…”

Did something get into the water at the New York Times? Because the latest from their Editorial Board – which “represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher,” is entitled:

Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For

It begins:

Now that the smoke has cleared from the NATO summit meeting, the most tangible result is apparent: President Trump advanced President Barack Obama’s initiative to keep the allies on track to shoulder a more equitable share of NATO’s costs. Mr. Trump even signed on to a tough statement directed at Russia. For once he saw eye to eye with his predecessor. –New York Times

To be sure, the Times dings Trump for bruising a few EU egos (while making his Chief of Staff John Kelly cringe during a particularly blunt public excoriation of Germany), and they rebuke the President for suggesting the US might withdraw from NATO if military spending targets aren’t met by member nations. At the end of the day, however, the New York Times just gave President Trump massive credit for achieving significant progress on a longstanding dispute over fairness and commitments.

*  *  *

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-13/nyt-admits-trump-got-nato-everything-obama-ever-asked

July 13 Showing Diligence

Not lagging in diligence.

Romans 12:11

Diligence applies to whatever you do in your Christian life. Anything done in the Lord’s service is worth doing with enthusiasm and care.

Jesus knew His time of earthly ministry was limited and that He needed to make the most of every opportunity to serve His heavenly Father. We also “must work…while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). And other Christians will certainly appreciate our diligent good works, as Paul urged, “Let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).[1]


[1] MacArthur, J. (2001). Truth for today : a daily touch of God’s grace (p. 214). Nashville, Tenn.: J. Countryman.

Gen Z is most open to faith, says new survey | Christian News on Christian Today

Post-millennials are more open and positive about faith than older generations, according to a ComRes survey about perceptions of religion in the UK.

— Read on www.christiantoday.com/article/gen-z-is-most-open-to-faith-says-new-survey/129974.htm

Media Scramble to Churn Out Anti-Trump Narratives on His European Trip

From NATO to London to the upcoming Putin Summit, liberals’ all-out determination to cast president in negative light is a big flop

“When are the most extreme of media freaks not freaking out about Trump speaking truths that former presidents, whether they had a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ by their name, dared not to ever air in public?” said commentator Michelle Malkin, host of CRTV’s “Michelle Malkin Investigates,” on Thursday night on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News.

“Whether they were freaking out over the Iran deal or North Korea, it’s always apocalypse,” she also told host Laura Ingraham. “The record so far has been when he says the things the American people want him to say, he has gotten his way — which is our way.”

“Say something bad about the president, please, right now, because it’s really awkward on camera for me,” Ingraham teased.

She was referencing a tight spot CNN’s chief national correspondent Christiane Amanpour had created for herself when she failed to elicit a negative comment about President Donald Trump’s performance during an interview with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

On assessing the unity and success of the NATO summit, Stoltenberg had told Amanpour, “This has been a very good summit … There’s no problem to have different views.”

“They keep doing that — and we’re going to get [a] reelection of Donald Trump in 2020,” said Malkin.

Here’s a breakdown of how things have gone in this regard.

— Read on www.lifezette.com/2018/07/media-scramble-to-churn-out-anti-trump-narratives-on-his-european-trip/

Peter Strzok’s Biggest Problem is Peter Strzok’s Text Messages

The crucial question Americans must decide is how 50,000 communications by the former FBI counter-intelligence agent can be ignored

Over and over again during Thursday’s combative hearing, former FBI counter-intelligence agent Peter Strzok argued that his repeated crude and bitterly critical cell phone comments to his bureau colleague and mistress, lawyer Lisa Page, were meaningless.

“I can tell you that those text messages are not indicative of bias,” Strzok (pictured above right) said many dozens of times, referring to the communications between himself and his lover, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Repeatedly, Strzok also insisted that a recent Department of Justice inspector general’s report concluded his personal biases had no influence on any decisions made by the FBI in its investigations of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to do officials business and allegations that 2016 campaign aides to President Donald Trump colluded with Russian interests.

Just as often, Republicans on the joint hearing of the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee either read verbatim statements by Strzok from his messages or required the embattled FBI agent to read his statements aloud.

And virtually every one of those exchanges concluded with Republican cross-examiners incredulously rejecting Strzok’s denial that his biases bore any significance to the hearing.

An exchange late in the day between Strzok and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) almost perfectly captured the conflicting claims about the significance of the agent’s text messages. The exchange began with this from Johnson, a freshman and thus one of the last committee members to question Strzok:

“You’ve spoken in lofty terms today about the importance of ethics and honesty and integrity, yet by every objective measure the public record of your actions belie those virtues. and the inspector general’s report concluded that your conduct demonstrated ‘extremely poor judgment and a gross lack of professionalism.’ Why should this committee, why should my constituents back home, why should the American people trust you as a credible witness?”

Strzok responded saying, “Sir, I regret and I am sorry for the way those texts have cast my actions into question and those of the FBI and the investigation. What I am telling you and what I would ask you to relay to your constituents is to look at the facts, set aside the texts, look at what the IG found, look at the actions, the actions that I took, the actions …”

At that point, however, Johnson (pictured left above) explained, “With all due respect, we cannot separate the texts from that question because the texts were written during the investigations, while you were in charge of these investigations, while you are the most important, responsible person in those investigations and we cannot separate your personal views and bias from the facts, as they developed. That’s our problem and at the end of the day that’s what we are all still concerned about, even after all these hours of hearings.”

The text message that Republicans went back to repeatedly was when Page plaintively asked Strzok was “ever going to be president.” Strzok responded, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The text message that Republicans went back to repeatedly was when Page plaintively asked Strzok was “ever going to be president.” Strzok responded, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Pressed by oversight panel chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R.-S.C.) to explain who his “we’ll” referred to, Strzok claimed he was referring in a generic manner to the American people.

Gowdy didn’t buy it. None of the other Republicans on the two House committees bought it.

The basic question now is whether the American people bought it.

— Read on www.lifezette.com/2018/07/peter-strzoks-biggest-problem-is-peter-strzoks-text-messages/

Brannon Howse: July 12, 2018 | Worldview Weekend

Featuring: Researcher Chris Pinto, Former DHS Officer Phil Haney & Former Catholic Mike Gendron. Topic: How Nazi Germany Weaponized Islam For Jihad & Socialists Still Do So Today. Topic: Pope Francis Says Catholics & Muslims Worship The Same God: What Are The Similarities Between Islam & Catholicism? Topic: Former Department of Homeland Security Officer on Sabotage From Within. Topic: We take your calls.
— Read on www.worldviewweekend.com/radio/audio/brannon-howse-july-12-2018

Progressive Child Abuse in the Schools — American Thinker

Many “educators” today sadly have become indoctrinators.  Educators and professors who teach students to use logic and critical thinking are doing God’s work.  Teachers who spur cognition and who encourage students to question, to read, and to investigate all points of view are truly teaching.  On the flip-side of the coin, we have teachers who now subscribe to methods of leftist indoctrination and who are currently using this indoctrination as a weapon within the classroom.

It becomes dangerous when these indoctrinators start using propaganda as a means of engaging young and impressionable minds.  Indoctrination eventually turns into brainwashing.  “Teachers” who feel it is their duty to render students incapable of using any kind of logic, critical thought, or reason when forming an opinion inevitably cause irreparable damage to young minds.

Filling up a young student’s mind with leftist propaganda through the method of relentless left-wing indoctrination is becoming all too familiar a process within our modern-day public school system.  Scary tactics are now being employed by leftist ideologues, many of whom seem to subscribe to a radical political agenda – an agenda that involves pushing many of their students straight into a collective leftist hive.  There seems to be a coordinated effort by many educators who are committed to scrambling and rewiring many students’ minds.  Many of these same teachers are also promoting the elimination of freedom of speech.

We all must ask ourselves what kind of damage the radical leftist Common Core curriculum has inflicted upon teachers, students, and families.  History has shown us that taking the power out of the parents’ hands and placing it in the hands of leftist bureaucrats has never been a wise thing to do.  When simple math problems begin resembling the plans for Apollo 12, multiple problems are bound to ensue.

The scrambling and rewiring of young minds is only half of the story.  Many leftist professors are now making it their mission to silence freedom of speech in most of our schools.  These leftist teachers and professors ironically are becoming the main danger to the students they have been entrusted to educate and to protect.

The leftist-controlled bureaucratic system of education has fully taken hold.  It is a system that no longer nurtures the growth of essential life skills that can improve only through participation in courses that feature subjects such as basic math, standard English, science, and unrevised history.  Many of these traditional courses are becoming obsolete.  For the left, it has become all about advancing a leftist political agenda by any means necessary.  All this comes at the expense of our children and our country.

Schools are also becoming less and less likely to offer any traditional courses in American history, hence the widespread ignorance of many U.S. citizens today regarding personal liberty and our sacred U.S. Constitution.  The left has replaced the noble and traditional educational process of challenging the minds of students with a dumbed down curriculum, which has an end goal of completely stifling student brain activity.

There also seems to be a “hate America at any cost” theme being embedded into the halls of every public school today.  Not only are these leftist “educators” indoctrinating their students, but many of them are now promoting the hatred of our president and our country.  Many leftist teachers have become all too happy to plant the seeds of hatred directly into many of their students’ impressionable minds.  Some are even stooping as low as using the guise of civics courses to promote their nefarious hate America agenda.

The victims of these radical leftist academicians are not just students; anybody who has a history of disagreeing with the ideology of  “progressivism” eventually becomes a target.  Apparently, one Fresno State professor had the audacity to call the now deceased former first lady Barbara Bush an “amazing” racist, cowardly waiting to do so immediately after she just passed away.

The Marxist professors and leftist teachers who currently inhabit most of modern-day academia are actually abusing the children they claim to educate.  These politically motivated extreme leftists are emptying young minds to the point where most students are no longer capable of thinking for themselves.  Many leftist “educators” are currently ushering in a new age of leftist fascism.

One of the most egregious things a teacher can inflict upon a student is to take away from the student his God-given right to think for himself.  Speaking one’s mind without the fear of having one’s opinion ridiculed or stifled by a leftist professor is an essential right that should be afforded to every single student in America, but it clearly isn’t.

To quote Rod Serling, the narrator from the famous TV series The Twilight Zone, we are currently living in an age where “logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.”  The leftists have gone all in by trying to invert reality, attempting to make individualism obsolete, replacing individuals who dare to think for themselves with a leftist conformity cult.  The education system of today has become nothing more than a leftist indoctrination laboratory, being controlled and monitored by the Dr.  Frankensteins of “progressivism.”
— Read on www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/progressive_child_abuse_in_the_schools.html

The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview — Cold Case Christianity

 

The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic WorldviewA few years ago, a gentleman (we’ll call him “John”) replied to a blog I posted at CrossExamined.org. As a skeptical non-believer, John wasn’t responding to what I had posted, but to fellow atheists who had been interacting with Christians in the comment section. John’s post was controversial but honest. In fact, he clearly delineated the problem of atheistic moral grounding. While the comments on the blog aren’t typically all that courteous, John complained they were too courteous, especially given the atheistic worldview of the people who were posting. Here’s what John had to say:

“[To] all my Atheist friends. 

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this.  However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.  

We are Atheists.  We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself.  While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not.  Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time.  But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past.  They got us here. That’s it.  All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose.  Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die.  That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books.  We imagine ourselves superior.  But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc.  Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality.  Have they allowed life to exist?  Absolutely.  But who cares?  Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife.  Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me.  Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population.  They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays.  But underneath they know the truth.  They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen.  Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one.  You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all.  When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may.  At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

John bluntly captured the true nature of morality when it is untethered to a transcendent source. Since posting this comment, I’ve been able to peek at John’s life in a very limited way and I’ve had a brief interaction with him. He appears to be a creative, responsible, loving husband and father. In fact, his outward life looks much like the life you and I might lead as Christians. As an atheist, my moral compass was much like that of the Christians I knew. But knowing what is far different than knowing why. I embraced a particular set of moral laws even though I couldn’t account for these laws in a world without a transcendent moral law giver. I typically attributed morality to some form of social or cultural evolution, but as John correctly observes, our selfish genes are not interested in the welfare of others when their personal survival is at stake. Without a true transcendent source for morality (and purpose), skeptics are left trying to invent their own, justifying their subjective moral rules as best they may. In the end, as John rightly observes, they end up “nurturing a new religion” and creating for themselves the very thing they detest.

When John first posted his comment (and I first started talking about it on my podcast), many of the other atheists who post at CrossExamined were infuriated. Some denied John’s identity as a skeptic and accused him of being a disguised Christian. But in my interaction with John, he told me he was weary of hearing fellow atheists mock their opponents for hypocrisy and ignorance, while pretending they had a definitive answer to the great questions of life. He simply wanted his fellow atheists to be consistent. As it turns out, theism provides the consistent moral foundation missing from John’s atheistic worldview.

This blog post from J. Warner first appeared as a BreakPoint blog post (be sure to visit BreakPoint often)

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case DetectiveChristian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case ChristianityCold-Case Christianity for KidsGod’s Crime SceneGod’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

via The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview — Cold Case Christianity

July 13, 2018 Morning Verse Of The Day

8  Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes,
who are deaf, yet have ears!
9  All the nations gather together,
and the peoples assemble.
Who among them can declare this,
and show us the former things?
Let them bring their witnesses to prove them right,
and let them hear and say, It is true.
10  “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.
11  I, I am the LORD,
and besides me there is no savior.
12  I declared and saved and proclaimed,
when there was no strange god among you;
and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God.
13  Also henceforth I am he;
there is none who can deliver from my hand;
I work, and who can turn it back?”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Is 43:8–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.


8–13 The atmosphere of the prophecy changes from comfort to challenge. Once again the reader is transported to a courtroom (cf. 1:2; 41:1, 21); Israel and the nations are in court together. What is being examined is the Lord’s claim to uniqueness, to sole deity. Most striking is the repetition of the first person singular, over and over again, which makes an overwhelming impact particularly in the Hebrew of vv. 11–13, where it occurs twelve times.

First of all, it is implied that God alone can foretell the future (v. 9; cf. 41:25–29). He alone is divine, and this always has been and always will be the truth. From his dealings with Israel in the past—as Revealer and Savior of his people (v. 12) and Judge of others at a time (presumably the exodus) when the people’s trust was solely in him—it is clear that he alone is God and Savior (v. 11). The reference to the formation of other gods (v. 10) may allude to idolatry or else to Near Eastern myths concerning the coming into being of various gods.

Israel appears in these verses as God’s witness (vv. 10, 12), bearing testimony to what he has done, just as later the apostles were witnesses of a still greater work of God in Christ (Ac 1:8). Other nations can give no witness for their own impotent deities, but Israel has so much to declare, for the Lord’s wonderful works have been done before her and in her behalf. Yet sadly, though she is God’s chosen servant, she is blind and deaf (cf. Isa 42:18–20). To make matters worse, her choice by him was with a view to intelligent faith in him, which should have made her most articulate and effective as a witness for him.[1]


43:8–13 / At first, the command in verse 8 resonates with that in 42:18. It might sound like another sharp scorning of the fact that the one called to be servant is blind and deaf and a commanding that Jacob-Israel’s obtuseness be exposed. The return to the court setting in verse 9a increases that possibility. So Jacob-Israel is to be arraigned before the world, as they were at the very beginning of the book (1:2). But then the prophecy takes a new, yet familiar, turn. It transpires that the court is turning its attention from the dispute between Jacob-Israel and Yahweh and reverting to the case Yahweh had initiated against the nations, the question of who really controls history. The nations have been summoned as the accused, not as witnesses. Indeed, they are now challenged to produce some witnesses who can testify to their (or their gods’) having announced events such as the rise of Cyrus and the coming fall of Babylon. That would demonstrate that they had been involved in planning and executing a purpose over the centuries.

Yahweh then directly addresses Jacob-Israel itself with the astonishing words you are my witnesses (v. 10). It transpires that the reason for bringing the blind and deaf into court is to tell them that they have an important role there. The blind are commissioned to be witnesses.

We have recalled the time at Sinai when Yahweh wanted to abandon Israel and start again. Israel’s later abandonment of its side of the covenant commitment that led to Samaria’s and then to Jerusalem’s fall might indeed have led to Yahweh’s having a further inclination of that kind. If Yahweh could not get out of the relationship with Israel, one might alternatively have imagined Yahweh in some way keeping Israel as covenant partner but finding some other agent in the world. Perhaps that might have been abandonment in another guise, in substance if not in form. For whatever reason, characteristically Yahweh moves in the opposite direction instead. Israel has not been very good at its job, so Yahweh enlarges its remit. It becomes Yahweh’s witnesses in the court case that was initiated in chapter 41. They have eyes but are blind. But at least they have eyes, so perhaps those eyes can be opened. And thus they continue to be my servant whom I have chosen. No, Yahweh is not taking the road of finding another servant, despite the evidence against this servant in 42:18–25. Yahweh is persevering with Jacob-Israel as servant. Putting “witnesses” and “servant” together also thus helps to establish how Yahweh’s servant fulfills the role described in 42:1–4.

We are familiar with the use in religious contexts of the idea of being a “witness” for God and of giving one’s “testimony,” but the expressions have lost their legal significance. This language presupposes that there is a case to be argued and evidence to be presented. The evidence lies not in subjective experience, which is not a law court’s concern, but in objective fact. There are events in the world that may seem to make little sense. Indeed, world history as a whole may seem to make little sense. But the Jewish people, and then the Christian church, possesses God’s announcements of intentions and God’s interpretations of actual events, and these provide the keys to understanding the enigmas of history. Isaiah 40–55 presupposes that this evidence needs pressing in public court, and that its force will be recognized—not least because there are no rivals to Yahweh who can offer a convincing and satisfying set of answers to the enigmas that otherwise confront the world.

A further surprise follows in verse 10b. One might have expected that Yahweh chose Jacob-Israel as witnesses so that the world would come to acknowledge Yahweh. We have presupposed as much in considering the implications of the court case metaphor. Instead, Yahweh says that the object of so choosing Jacob-Israel is that the people themselves should come to acknowledge Yahweh. That longstanding purpose was the one Yahweh could not go back on. And their call as witnesses now has as its own aim the convincing of the witnesses themselves. Their being called to bring other people out of darkness will be the means by which they themselves are brought out of darkness, by which their eyes and ears are opened. Yahweh goes on (v. 10b–13) to spell out the content of their witness and the evidence that is to convince them. These are the facts about Yahweh that their own history has proved to them. Yahweh has long been speaking and then acting, and thereby has been both sovereign in history and proving sovereignty in history. They know it, and they know that it is not true of other so-called gods. They must come to acknowledge it.[2]


43:8–13 The Lord now summons Israel and all the nations to a court test. Let them bring … witnesses as to the ability of idols to predict future events. Otherwise let them acknowledge that only God is true. The Lord calls Israel as His witnesses; they should testify that He is the only true God, that He is eternal, that besides Him there is no savior and Deliverer, and that His decrees and acts cannot be thwarted.[3]


8–13 Here Israel is faced again with her sin against the light (8; cf. 42:18–20); yet she is held to her high calling as servant and chosen (10), as much for her own instruction (that you may knowbelieveand understand) as that of the world. Her very history testified for Yahweh (10–12); one day the title my witnesses was to have its full force (cf. Acts 1:8), but for the present Israel appears as a passive and reluctant exhibit. The forensic setting is that of 41:1–4, 21–23; the point at issue is the non-existence of any God but Yahweh, in ages past, present or to come (10b, 11, 13).[4]


43:11–13 These verses form a magnificent celebration of the sovereignty of God (14:24, 26, 27; compare Num. 23:19). no foreign god: The Hebrew text contains merely the word foreign; the word god is implied. The point is that only the living God was at work in the Israelites’ midst. savior: This same Hebrew term is used in v. 3. before the day: The Lord was always at work—saving, protecting, guiding, and disciplining His people. The concluding line of the song of praise—there is no one … My hand—is quoted from Deut. 32:39.[5]


43:11–13. The Lord’s deliverance of Israel also shows that He is the true God. He is her only Savior and no one can oppose His plans. “Savior” is another title of God that Isaiah used frequently (cf. 17:10; 43:3; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16; 62:11; 63:8). God’s revealing His plans and saving His people could not be duplicated by any foreign god. Israel’s existence witnesses to His sovereignty and eternity. No one can reverse what God puts into action or thwart His plans (cf. Job 42:2).[6]


Over against the magnificent portrayal of the future of God’s people is present reality: Israel is still blind and deaf (43:8–13). In spite of this condition, however, God still has a future for them. They will be witnesses to his majesty and authority over the nations. He cannot use the nations for this purpose because they have given themselves over to idolatry. God’s people should know only Yahweh, having experienced his deliverance.

The phrases I am he (v. 10b) and I am God (v. 12) signify that only Yahweh, the God of Israel, is God. He is also the powerful Redeemer who has already shown his ability to his people. Yahweh as the God of his people has revealed himself by words as well as deeds so that all might know that he is the only true God.[7]


[1] Grogan, G. W. (2008). Isaiah. In T. Longman III, Garland David E. (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah (Revised Edition) (Vol. 6, pp. 745–746). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] Goldingay, J. (2012). Isaiah. (W. W. Gasque, R. L. Hubbard Jr., & R. K. Johnston, Eds.) (pp. 246–248). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[3] MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 970). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[4] Kidner, F. D. (1994). Isaiah. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 658). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

[5] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 851). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

[6] Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1097). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[7] VanGemeren, W. A. (1995). Isaiah. In Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Vol. 3, p. 501). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Public ‘Got to See the Bias’ at Strzok Hearing, DeSantis Says

Although Robert Mueller removed the FBI agent from the Trump-Russia probe, Rudy Giuliani said the special counsel is ‘asleep at the switch’

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) is glad the American people “got to see” disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok’s “bias” against President Donald Trump firsthand during his raucous public hearing Thursday.

“[Strzok] was not a credible witness, and I think his explanations didn’t hold water,” DeSantis, a member of both the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Thursday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.” “I think the public got to see the bias.”

Strzok (pictured above) received intense backlash after his anti-Trump text messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to light. He served as a top FBI counterintelligence official and participated in both special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into allegations of collusion between Trump’s campaign officials and Russia and the probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of state.

But Mueller removed Strzok from his team after the anti-Trump and pro-Clinton text messages with Page came to his attention. Strzok testified before congressional committees behind closed doors in late June before testifying Thursday in a public hearing. Page agreed Thursday to comply with her subpoena to testify Friday after defying the subpoena Wednesday.

Strzok insisted during the explosive hearing that the biases within his text messages didn’t translate into biased actions, arguing that lawmakers and FBI agents alike harbor political biases that aren’t supposed to affect their official duties.

“Strzok was one of millions of people who probably had those views. He’s the only person in America who opened up a counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s campaign,” DeSantis noted.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump’s legal team, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he “spoke to about five former FBI agents tonight — including a former high-ranking one, very high-ranking one,” noting that those agents see Strzok “as a complete renegade, a complete scoundrel and a criminal.”

“And every organization has some really bad people. This guy is a really bad guy,” Giuliani said. “And the reason the Democrats look so bad is they were stupidly defending him.”

Democratic members of the House committees participating in Strzok’s hearing broke out into choruses of objections and repeatedly spoke over GOP lawmakers attempting to question Strzok. Democrats even broke out into applause after one of Strzok’s particularly defiant answers, and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) told Strzok he believed he deserved “a purple heart” for enduring the Republican onslaught.

“Those Democrats trying to protect that liar Strzok today should be ashamed of themselves,” Giuliani said.

Noting that Strzok boasted during the hearing about how he still held “a top secret clearance with some SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] compartments,” Giuliani called it “disgraceful,” if true.

Related: Strzok Pressed to Explain His Fear Mueller Probe Would Go Nowhere

“I am ashamed of the Justice Department today. Why aren’t they moving against this guy? Why does he still have a security clearance?” Giuliani asked.

Although Mueller removed Strzok from the Trump-Russia probe once his texts with Page came to light, Giuliani still insisted that Mueller is “asleep at the switch” with a team filled with investigators who are registered Democrats and donated to Democratic causes.

“It’s being run by the same kind of Hillary partisans that [Strzok] is,” Giuliani said. “And they will frame Donald Trump, which is one of the reasons they’re trying to set a perjury trap for him. Thank God we’re tough enough to smell that out.”

Giuliani also revealed that the possibility of Trump actually sitting down personally to interview with Mueller is “probably further away” than before.

“They have never unraveled the taint that [Strzok] created,” Giuliani lamented.

— Read on www.lifezette.com/2018/07/public-got-to-see-the-bias-at-strzok-hearing-desantis-says/

GTY Blog Post – Friday's Featured Sermon: "Facing Death Confidently, Part 2"

Have you ever met anyone who expects to live forever? Though they might not verbalize that expectation, the way some people live suggests they are unmoved by the unstoppable march of time, and unconcerned about the inevitability of the grave. Others obsess over death, and take extreme measures to prevent its arrival.

For Christians, both of those perspectives are invalid. God’s people must live with an eye toward eternity, understanding the brevity of this life (James 4:14) and the urgency of the work for which the Lord has set us apart.

At the same time, we must not succumb to the fear of death. We must not be willing to live and die as those who have no hope of heaven. As John MacArthur explains, despair about death is contrary to the Christian life.

To wish to avoid death is disloyalty to God. It is depreciation of the glories of heaven. It is insensitivity to the comparative worthlessness of earth’s vanities. To wish to avoid death is coldness of love to Christ. And to wish to avoid death is little weariness with sin.

That’s a quote from John’s exposition of 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, titled “Facing Death Confidently, Part 2.” In those verses, Paul compares the frailties of this life to the perfection that awaits, and points our focus to our eternal home. It’s a passage that ought to prompt every Christian to run his or her race with excellence (Hebrews 12:1), knowing the rich blessings that await us in heaven.

As John explains in his sermon, Christians must not be content to slump toward the finish line.

Faith always has its greatest work to do at the very last. The reality of faith is most clearly manifest in the face of death. Paul had the kind of faith that was strong in life and strong in death. He finished well. He died with patience. He died with hope. He died with joy. He died with eagerness. And he left behind a tremendous witness to the integrity of his faith and his confidence in the truth of God’s Word and the excellencies of God’s ways. God is honored when believers die triumphantly. He is honored when they are confident in the face of death, even cheerful. And certainly our last and best witness to the love and devotion we have to our Lord is how we die.

God’s people should approach the end of this temporal life with eagerness and anticipation. Such conviction is not merely the product of a fleeting emotional high. It’s only possible through a firm, settled confidence in our future home with the Lord. We should yearn for eternity—not out of some morbid desire, but as homesick children longing to be where our Father is.

If you want to cultivate such a godly longing for heaven, or if you simply want to further stimulate your heavenly affections, you don’t want to miss this message.

Click here to listen to “Facing Death Confidently, Part 2.”
— Read on www.gty.org/library/blog/B180713

July 13 Rejection of the World

“Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

1 John 2:15

✧✧✧

Genuine believers love God and reject the world and all its philosophies.

As the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), Satan has designed a system that the Bible simply calls “the world.” The Greek term (kosmos) refers to a system encompassing false religion, errant philosophy, crime, immorality, materialism, and the like. Of it the apostle John wrote, “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:16–17). While the world and its fleshly preoccupations are but temporary realities, the true believer has eternal life and will abide forever.

When someone becomes a Christian, he acquires a new set of goals and motivations; the world and its lusts no longer attract but repel him. He no longer loves “the world, nor the things in the world” (v. 15). At times he may be lured into worldly pursuits, but he is doing not what he loves but what he hates (cf. Rom. 7:15). That’s because new life in Christ gives the believer a love for God and the things of God.

Jesus said those who follow Him are not of the world, just as He was not of the world. We still move about in it to do His will, but we are not of it. That’s why Jesus specifically asked the Father to keep us from the evil one (John 17:14–16). We’re vulnerable to being sucked into this evil world’s system now and then, but our love is toward God. That love is what will redirect our focus toward heavenly priorities.

Do you reject the world and its false religions, damning ideologies, and godless pursuits? Instead, do you love God, His truth, His kingdom, and all that He stands for? If you reject the world and its devilish desires, that is a strong indication you have new life in Christ.

✧✧✧

Suggestions for Prayer: Ask God to reveal to you ways you may still be clinging to the world. When He does, sever those connections.

For Further Study: Read 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1–3; and James 4:4. What is Satan’s ultimate goal in pulling people into his system?[1]


[1] MacArthur, J. (1997). Strength for today. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Peter Strzok: I Didn’t Really Mean Trump Supporters Were ‘Ignorant Hillbillies’ | Breitbart

Appearing before a joint session of House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees Thursday, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) probed disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok over disparaging comments he made about Trump supporters.

Peter Strzok said his disparaging comments about “ignorant hillbilly” Trump supporters were not meant to disparage Trump supporters.
— Read on www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/12/peter-strzok-i-didnt-really-mean-trump-supporters-were-ignorant-hillbillies/