Daily Archives: October 24, 2018

OCTOBER 24 POSTPONING OBEDIENCE

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

Acts 16:31

A notable heresy has come into being throughout our evangelical Christian circles—the widely accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need Him as Savior, and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to Him as long as we want to!

The truth is that salvation apart from obedience is unknown in the sacred Scriptures. Peter makes it plain that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience” (1 Peter 1:2).

It seems most important to me that Peter speaks of his fellow Christians as “obedient children” (vs. 14). He knew their spirituality—he was not just giving them an exhortation to be obedient.

The entire Bible teaches that true obedience to God and His Christ is one of the toughest requirements in the Christian life. Actually, salvation without obedience is a self-contradicting impossibility!

Humans do not want to admit it, but the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans long ago that “by one man’s disobedience” came the downfall of the human race (see Romans 5:19).

Dear Lord, I pray today for all the “nominal” Christians in our churches who are straddling the fence of faith. I pray that Your Spirit will impress upon them the need to become fully devoted followers of Christ who will become actively engaged in the battle for men’s souls.[1]


[1] Tozer, A. W. (2015). Mornings with tozer: daily devotional readings. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

OCTOBER 24 THE PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

—Psalm 14:2

When God spoke out of heaven to our Lord, self-centered men who heard it explained it by natural causes, saying, “it thundered” (John 12:29). This habit of explaining the Voice by appeals to natural law is at the very root of modern science. In the living, breathing cosmos there is a mysterious Something, too wonderful, too awful for any mind to understand. The believing man does not claim to understand. He falls to his knees and whispers, “God.” The man of earth kneels also, but not to worship. He kneels to examine, to search, to find the cause and the how of things. Just now we happen to be living in a secular age. Our thought habits are those of the scientist, not those of the worshiper. We are more likely to explain than to adore. “It thundered,” we exclaim, and go our earthly way. But still the Voice sounds and searches. The order and life of the world depend upon that Voice, but men are mostly too busy or too stubborn to give attention. POG073-074

Lord, I don’t claim to understand, but I fall to my knees and whisper “God.” Give me increasingly the mind of the worshiper, I pray. Amen. [1]


[1] Tozer, A. W., & Eggert, R. (2015). Tozer on the almighty god: a 365-day devotional. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Deep state rolls out staged “bomb” attack on CNN headquarters, just as Mike Adams and Alex Jones publicly predicted on multiple video broadcasts

(Natural News) Exactly as publicly predicted by myself and Alex Jones, the anti-American globalists are now running pipe bombs false flags against CNN. This is not merely similar to what we publicly predicted would take place before the mid-term elections; it is exactly what we publicly predicted would take place. We even named CNN as the most likely target to be selected by the globalist operatives running the operation.

“CNN’s New York Headquarters Evacuated After Suspicious Package Found,” reports Mediaite.com. Similar “pipe bombs” were also reportedly mailed to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros. “The CNN bureau at Columbus Circle in new York City was evacuated Wednesday morning after mailroom workers found a suspicious device,” reports The Gateway Pundit. “The bomb scare comes on the heels of suspected IEDs mailed to the home  former President Obama in Washington, D.C. and the New York state homes of former President Clinton Clinton and major Democratic Party donor George Soros this morning.”

A coordinated false flag bombing to be blamed on Trump supporters in order to alter the outcome of the mid-term elections

This is precisely what I have publicly predicted would take place right before the mid-term elections: A coordinated false flag bombing of the left-wing media and left-wing political leaders. It’s blatantly obvious that the globalist democrats are sending these packages to themselves, knowing the media will blame Trump supporters, Alex Jones, conservatives and gun owners.

What you are witnessing is the very definition of a media-run false flag event, where the media itself gets targeted so that the same media can hysterically report that it’s under attack because President Trump is whipping up “hate” against the media.

You can see proof of our predictions below:

NaturalNews.com, August 10, 2018: “Censorship PURGE points to imminent false flag violence before mid-term elections… bigger than 9/11?

Counterthink.com, Aug. 10, 2018: “Censorship PURGE points to imminent FALSE FLAG violence

From time to time, I join the Alex Jones Show broadcast, often to chime in on food science, nutrition and liberty issues. In multiple broadcasts this year, Alex and I discussed the coming false flag attacks and predicted how they would be false flag attacks to be blamed on Alex Jones.

Watch the compilation video here:

Brighteon.com/5852933806001

The false flag bombings of the media were EASY to predict

These obvious false flag “pipe bomb” events showcase the stunning desperate of the left-wing media and its globalist controllers. It also reveals that they now believe they are going to lose the mid-term elections, otherwise they would not have invoked this desperate measure.

Importantly, the mailing of these “suspicious packages” is just the very beginning of this false flag rollout. If this narrative gets sufficient traction, the same operatives will likely escalate this to active bombings of CNN or social media tech giants.

In fact, in my Health Ranger Report podcasts, I have repeatedly predicted that false flag attacks would specifically target CNN. Here are just a few links to hear it for yourself:

Censorship a prelude to a massive FALSE FLAG event

It’s FALSE FLAG season in America

Plot to ELIMINATE TRUMP about to be triggered

See more news at FalseFlag.news.

Source: Deep state rolls out staged “bomb” attack on CNN headquarters, just as Mike Adams and Alex Jones publicly predicted on multiple video broadcasts

Over Half Of America Gets More In Welfare Than It Pays In Taxes

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

More than half of Americans receive more money in various types of government transfer payments (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security) than they pay in federal taxes.

According to a report released this year by the Congressional Budget Office, only the top two income quintiles in the United States pay more in taxes than they receive in government transfers.

Not surprisingly, the lowest income quintiles receive far more in transfers than they pay in taxes:

In the lowest quintile, households pay only $400 in taxes (as of 2014, the most recent data available) while receiving more than $16,000 in various types of tax-funded transfer payments.

The end result is households in the bottom three quintiles have higher incomes after taxes and transfers than they do before taxes and transfers:

The second-to-top quintile is slightly worse off after taxes and transfers, and the highest quintile is sizably worse off. In other words, the top two income quintiles are subsidizing the bottom three, and the advantage, proportionally speaking, gets larger as income goes down.

The Politics of a Majority on the Dole

The political implications of this are considerable. As Ludwig von Mises once noted, once we get to the point that a majority of the voting population receives more in benefits than it pays in taxes, then voters will demand more and more wealth be transferred to them through government programs. It will then become politically necessary to extract larger and larger amounts of wealth from a minority in order to subsidize the majority.

Market economics will become less and less popular because the voters will have realized they can — in the words of James Bovard — “vote for a living” instead of work for a living.

These findings don’t always apply at the level of the individual household, of course. In the middle quintile, especially, we’ll find some households that are indeed worse off after taxes and transfers than before. This will especially be the case for households that do not yet receive old-age benefits such as Medicare and Social Security. Those households are currently being taxed to pay for current recipients of SS and Medicare. Later, however, those households will begin to receive those benefits. And, over a lifetime, they’re likely to receive more in benefits than what they “paid in.” This notion of “paying in,” however, is pure fiction, and there is no “trust fund” for old-age benefits, and all benefits received at any given time are funded via taxation of current wage earners.

As far as politics goes, this latter fact is very important because voters receiving old-age benefits know that any significant cut in government spending and government taxation is likely to necessitate a decline in paid benefits. This is why neither major party ever seriously talks about cutting Medicare or Social Security, and why Donald Trump has even recently declared his own love for Medicare. It’s simply a redistribution of income and wealth from current wage earners to current recipients, and for most elected officials, attempting to cut these benefits would be political suicide.

At the low end, benefits more frequently take the form of “means-tested” benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. And since these benefits are geared toward low-income earners, we naturally see more benefits going toward the lowest earners. Indeed, in the lowest quintile, market income is less than half of income after taxes and transfers.

But for many voters, the reality is this: any significant cuts in federal spending will mean less government benefits, either now or later.

(And don’t forget that the data here doesn’t even account for government employees whose “market” income is also government funded. In the case of those workers, cuts in government spending will reduce both their market income and their transfer income.)

Since many households at both the lowest end and near the middle receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, we end up with a situation in which the voters think tax cuts don’t benefit them much — but spending cuts definitely do hurt them.

Thus, the political outcome is one in which there is plenty of political pressure to maintain spending levels — or increase them — while tax cuts aren’t as popular.

Transfer Income Is Growing as a Portion of Market Incomes

Looking at transfer incomes as a percentage of market incomes, by quintile, we find significant growth since the dot-com bust of 2001:

With the lowest quintile, transfer payments declined during the 1990’s economic expansion, and in the wake of the 1996 welfare reform. But government transfer payments grew again following the 2001-2002 recession. Transfers dipped again as the US approached the 2008 bust, and have grown sizably ever since.

Indeed, as of 2014, transfers by this measure were at an all-time high for the second-to-lowest quintile, and were near an all-time hight for the lowest quintile.

But in all quintiles, transfers have increased proportional to market income, whether due to stagnating market income or growing transfer payments. an increasing role for transfer payments can also give a false impression of overall income growth since official income numbers, as provided by federal agencies such as the Census Bureau, usually include transfer payments and other taxpayer-funded sources of income in the income data. Basically, transfer payments are padding the income data — paid for by the top income quintiles.

Perceptions Matter

Like all statistics of this sort, though, we can’t get a complete picture from this alone. This data only tells us about transfer payments — which are easy to track — and doesn’t tell us much about the many other ways that governments transfer wealth and income. For instance, we must also consider how regulations negatively impact the incomes of employees and business owners at all levels. And we must not ignore how money-supply inflation tends to hurt the poor the most, while tending to favor higher-income groups. And then there are government contracts — such as high-tech weapons contracts that tend to benefit higher income groups as well.

Ultimately, though, perceptions often matter more than the details behind the numbers. The CBO report reminds us that a great many voters receive government welfare checks of various types, and the perception is that any true cuts in spending will bring a high cost to those who have become accustomed to their taxpayer funded benefits. Ultimately, the effects on voting patters and public policy will be very real.

Source: Over Half Of America Gets More In Welfare Than It Pays In Taxes

Science Wins – Trump Administration Proposes Transgender Policy Based On Biology

Authored by Nancy Pearcey, op-ed via The Daily Caller,

The Trump administration has proposed the idea of recognizing “sex” as “biological sex” for purposes of Title IX, according to a draft memo leaked to the New York Times.

This seemingly innocuous proposal has sparked a firestorm.

First, a brief background.

Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded programs. It was passed in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments Act to ensure that women have access to educational programs equivalent to men’s programs.

In 2016, the Obama administration issued a guidance letter reinterpreting “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The letter required schools to “‘treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX.” This drastic reinterpretation was done without an act of Congress or even the normal rule-making process for regulations. It was clearly an act of bureaucratic overreach.

And it spurred a frenzy of disputes over trans students claiming access to spaces restricted to the opposite sex—bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dormitories, sports teams, and so on.

Then, in 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama guidelines. But it left unclear just what the law does require. Hence the administration’s current effort to provide a clear, uniform definition of the term “sex.”

The memo suggests that “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.” In this way, sex will be determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

Who could object to science and objectivity? Lots of people, apparently…

The New York Times reported the story with the overheated headline “Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence.”

Actually, no. The administration is merely saying that Title IX does not apply to trans people. No one is being defined “out of existence.” There are lots of laws that do not apply to you or me, and that fact does not deny our existence.

Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of The NYTlikewise indulged in histrionic overstatement, tweeting, “The Trump Admin has a new definition of sex that would render 1.4 million transgendered people legally nonexistent.”

Not exactly. The administration is saying that discrimination “on the basis of sex” means biological sex, not gender identity. Trans people still enjoy all the ordinary protections of other citizens, including the Bill of Rights and all other constitutional rights.

George Takei, the “Star Trek” actor, tweeted, “The Trump administration is trying to make trans people disappear by defining gender as only male and female, determined by genitalia at birth.”

Come back to earth, Mr. Takei. The administration is not trying to make people “disappear.” The fact is that Title IX was originally intended to apply to biological sex — which, by the way, is established not at birth but long before birth. Most parents use ultrasound to discover their babies’ sex before they are born.

Planned Parenthood panicked, tweeting, “This is horrifying. These inhumane, cruel, and discriminatory policies are dangerous.” (Ironic, considering that words like “inhumane” and “cruel” describe what Planned Parenthood itself does — tearing apart tiny babies.)

In reality, the current administration is seeking to correct the Obama administration’s overreach. The lawmakers who passed Title IX in 1972 did not mean sexual orientation and gender identity. They wanted to protect women’s rights. Period.

Ironically, Obama’s reinterpretation had precisely the opposite outcome. It undercut women’s rights by reducing biological sex to a social construct.

Trans ideologues say what counts are not objective facts but subjective feelings. They insist that people with penises and prostate glands are “women” if they feel like women. Or that people with uteruses are “men” if they feel like men. That’s why we see misleading headlines like “Man Gives Birth to Healthy Baby” (in reality, a woman living as a man whose female biology is still intact).

The problem is that if we can no longer define women by objective, scientific criteria, then we can no longer legally protect women as a class. We cannot legally protect a category of people if we cannot identify that category.

Private feelings are important, but public law must be based on scientific facts.

 

Source: Science Wins – Trump Administration Proposes Transgender Policy Based On Biology