Daily Archives: May 27, 2020

SHOCKING: Planned Parenthood Officials Admit Under Oath to Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts — The Gateway Pundit

Can you get any more evil than this?  Planned Parenthood officials reportedly shared under oath that they indeed sold aborted baby body parts.

Live Action reported yesterday, that under oath, officials of Planned Parenthood stated that they did sell aborted baby body parts:

An explosive new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) contradicts past claims from Planned Parenthood that the corporation never participated in the sale of aborted baby body parts but merely donated them and was compensated for expenses. Featuring testimony from Planned Parenthood officials under oath in 2019, as well as documents from those officials’ admissions, the video shows these executives and directors admitting to actually selling body parts, which is illegal.

Numerous depositions are featured in the video, including from Tram Nguyen (Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s Senior Director of Abortion Access), Dr. Dorothy Furgerson (Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte), and Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the former senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, among others. More testimony and documents are available on the CMP website.

In addition, they provided a tape of these testimonies:

This is really, really sick and evil.  This must stop.

via SHOCKING: Planned Parenthood Officials Admit Under Oath to Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts — The Gateway Pundit

“Twitter Falsely Undermined the Truth… Thereby Misleading the American Public” – Senior Legal Adviser to @TeamTrump Responds to Twitter’s ‘Blatantly Partisan’ Attack on President — The Gateway Pundit

\

President Trump and Jenna Ellis

On Tuesday Twitter added a fake fact-check to President Trump’s tweet on mail-in voting scandals.

 Conservative Michael Coudrey caught this earlier today on a Trump tweet on mail-in voter fraud!

Here’s another look at how his tweet will look in incognito mode.

Twitter is running “fact-checks” on the president’s tweets in support of mail-in voting!

And the person behind Twitter “Site Integrity” is an avowed leftist who says there are “nazis in the White House.”

On Wednesday Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to Team Trump and Attorney to President Trump, issued a response to Twitter’s partisan tactics on Wednesday.

Team Trump rejects Twitter’s blatantly partisan attempt to ‘fact check’ the President on election integrity. Twitter falsely undermined the truth and opinion of his tweet, thereby misleading the American public on the valid concerns with mail-in ballots.

FACTS: Mail-in balloting increases the chain of custody of a ballot and thus increases the incidents of fraud. Without mail-in balloting, there can’t be vote harvesting, which is a key attempt of Democrats to undermine important safeguards to election security. Without mail-in balloting, there is ZERO chance of ballots being stolen or not cast on time.

Election integrity and security is not a partisan issue and President Trump is right to be concerned with keeping the votes of all Americans in all elections free and fair.

We call on Twitter to remove this partisan ‘fact check’ flag and obvious political maneuver suggesting President Trump’s tweet was false.

via “Twitter Falsely Undermined the Truth… Thereby Misleading the American Public” – Senior Legal Adviser to @TeamTrump Responds to Twitter’s ‘Blatantly Partisan’ Attack on President — The Gateway Pundit

Flying the Fear Flag — Blog & Mablog

 

Introduction

We need to begin with the question, the answer, and the qualification.

The question is why are Americans so afraid to die? The answer is that we are afraid to die because we deserve to die, about which more in a minute. And the qualification is that, of course, not all Americans are afraid to die, and not everyone who wears a mask is afraid to die either. I recently wore a mask because it was the only way to get a haircut. So the reasons can of course vary.

But there is no denying that we are dealing with an overall climate of fear, an environment of panic, and at the center of all that fear and panic is the specter of death — a death we all have coming.

So why are Americans afraid to die? It is not because we shrink from the injustice of it. The thing that troubles us deep down is the justice of it.

The first thing to do is reaffirm what Scripture teaches about all of this, and the second thing to do is to identify what the god of this generation is trying to do. We will get to that momentarily.

God’s Word Confirmed

The Scriptures are very plain about where death comes from.

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

Ezekiel 18:20a (KJV)

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 6:23 (KJV)

So the bite is the bite of death. But the venom in the bite is guilt — the fact that we deserve to die.

“The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

1 Corinthians 15:56 (KJV)

The law does not just draw the boundary. The law sets the penalty for transgressing that boundary, and the law, being altogether holy, also establishes the defilement of guilt for having crossed it. If we are found on the wrong side of that fence, it is altogether righteous for our bodies to be hanged from a gallows so that passers-by might take heed. And when this happens, the worst thing about it, from our perspective, is that our bodies ought to be hanging there. There is no injustice in it anywhere.

And so, naturally, we are afraid. Now we might bluster a bit and say that we are not afraid, and puff out our chests a little, but if you took an honest look around you would have to admit that you are out on a bike trail, five miles from town, all by yourself, and wearing a mask. You’re afraid of something.

If you are not in Christ, then that means you are under the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil. But the devil was destroyed through the death of death in the death of Christ on the cross. And that means that those who are still under the fear of death are afraid of a shadow, of a vanity.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Hebrews 2:14-15 (KJV)

When Choice is Checkmated

But it gets worse. Not only are we fearful, we are also bewildered by our fear. This shouldn’t be happening, we mutter to ourselves.

The current idol of our age is the idol of personal choice, and this is an idol that is currently lying flat on its face like Dagon in that Philistine temple. This is problematic for those who want to continue to prostrate themselves before a god that is prostrate.

Before getting to the substance of my point here, allow me to say first that I yield to no one when it comes to my admiration for the power of choice in lawful free market transactions. When it comes to stocking the shelves of our grocery stores with every kind of breakfast cereal imaginable, there is nothing like untrammeled consumer choice. Adam Smith’s invisible hand is there for you, whether you wanted chocolate-covered sugar blams, or organic and nutritious shredded lawn clippings. The free choices of customers in such situations should always be trusted, and left entirely alone.

But there is a snare. The Peter Principle teaches us that in every organization, an employee tends to rise in the hierarchy until he gets to a position of relative incompetence. And there he remains. Because he did a good job down in the warehouse, he got promoted, and he kept getting promoted until he wasn’t doing a good job anymore. And as soon as he is not doing a good job anymore, he stops getting promoted, and we make the arrangement permanent.

And that is just what we did to poor old consumer choice. He was doing such a good job delivering the breakfast cereal that we decided to make him a god. Having made him a god, we put him in charge of all kinds of things. Consumer choice must reign over all, and we get irritated and angry when someone even hints to us that we cannot actually have the gender-assignment equivalent of the chocolate-covered sugar blams.

This poor warehouse worker is now expected to rewrite genetic code so that a consumer dude can choose to release the little girl inside, and wear his hair in ringlets. He is expected to rewrite history because someone has chosen to be descended from African princes. Not only so, but he is also expected to have rewritten that history without rewriting anything, so that the chooser can continue to have been oppressed throughout all history, meaning that he is expected to rewrite the law of non-contradiction also. He is expected to rewrite the laws of biology so that the small child in the womb can be redefined as a parasite. And all of a sudden, he has everybody yelling at him. “Do this for him! Do that for her! Don’t use those pronouns!”

That poor little warehouse god of personal choices was fully extended on the breakfast cereal question, but he was doing good. And so we, in our collective and democratic wisdom, promoted him and put him in charge of the human genome, the course of history, the laws of logic, the realm of biology, and the laws of deep grammar. We insist that we be allowed to choose anything. We went from designer jeans to designer genes.

But then — somebody needs to cue the ominous music — we heard the footsteps of the ultimate unchosen thing. Death approaches. The death of every man and every woman approaches, and we turn to our poor little overtaxed god of choice, noting that he has beads of sweat all across his forehead, and we say that something needs to be done about the dark one over there with the scythe.

And so the god of personal choice, wishing he had stuck with the Honey Bunches of Oats gig, starts to flail. Masks! Vaccines! More vaccines! Health care! Single payer health care! Vitamins! Preventative medicine! Cryonics! Eat right! You shall not surely die!

Said the serpent (Gen. 3:4).

via Flying the Fear Flag — Blog & Mablog

Mandatory Masks Have Very Little To Do With Safety And Everything To Do With Social Control To Keep Us In A Constant State Of Confinement — Now The End Begins

If everyone is wearing a COVID-19 mask, it telegraphs a society-wide acceptance that the status quo has changed, and with that consensus other changes can come, too.

I believe in practicing excellent hygiene and social skills, my parents taught me that years ago, and it is something I have always done. I wash my hands everytime I go to the bathroom after I have touched things, and I proactively wash my hands before touching things in the kitchen. My kids will be happy to tell you I am a freak about hand washing, and have made sure that they are as well. That said, it is sick people that should be placed in isolation, not healthy people. It is sick people that should be wearing masks, not those who are not sick. So what’s the agenda here?

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” 1 Thessalonians 5:3,4 (KJB)

From the beginning of the COVID-19 plannedemic, we have shown you how the global elites have taken a real virus outbreak, that really kills people, and have turned it into a trojan horse to bring in the New World Order. Every step of the way, world governments have shut down their economies and imprisoned their citizens all in the name of ‘peace and safety’. Now they want mandatory mask wearing even as the virus is lessening and lifting, why?

The mandatory masks serve as a physical and ever-present reminder that they are in control, and that we are powerless. This social conditioning is so powerful that I see people everyday driving alone in their cars, windows up, and wearing a mask. That is lunacy, that is insanity. If you are healthy and you are doing that, you are endangering your own health. Stop that immediately. If you’re sick, don’t wear a mask, stay home until you’re better, just as common sense has always dictated sick people should act. But we are living in uncommon times and there is nothing sensible about them.

Mandatory Masks Aren’t About Your COVID-19 Safety, They’re About Social Control And Keeping You In Fear

FROM THE FEDERALIST: On May 26, Virginia’s Gov. Ralph Northam announced that wearing masks outside one’s home will be mandatory effective May 29. He first hinted he might issue a masking order a week ago, likely to test the water.

A new refrain in public discourse is growing in volume by the day: “Things will never be the same.” The certainty with which we are assured of this pre-determined future is perplexing. Whether or not “things” will ever be the same is not at all clear, but that some people hope things will never be the same is certain.

To those looking to benefit politically from emergencies, COVID presents an opportunity to advance plans targeted to transform American freedom and the American way of life. Mandatory-masking policies provide a valuable foundation to weaponize the virus against American liberty—now and in the future.

Demanding Freedoms Helps Ensure Them

Much of our freedom is maintained by the collective resistance of the American mood. When the Minnesota governor excluded churches from his Phase I reopening plan, Catholic and Lutheran leadership announced, through counsel, that their churches would reopen with or without the state’s blessing.

The governor’s resulting about-face was probably not due to a legal epiphany. Rather, he understood he’d pushed the envelope too far. Minnesotans wouldn’t put up with any further abuse of their religious freedoms. Would Virginians, outside of the blue D.C. suburbs, be willing to accept a masking order? To take our freedom from us, people with anti-American agendas have to mobilize some initial quorum of consent from the population.

Masking Is Meant to Build an Opinion Cascade

Mandatory masking seeks to build that consent. In addition to extending the fiction that we are in an emergency sufficient to trigger the extra-constitutional authority of local and state executives, mandatory masking acts as a peer pressure-fueled signal that encourages conformity to our coming “new normal.”

An April 18 article in the Washington Post underscores the strategy, presenting the mask controversy as a left versus right debate. People resisting mandatory mask policies are, per usual, painted as unreasonable, headstrong, and backward—displaying ignorant American bravado while rejecting science and good sense. (That caricature is itself a tool to mock, marginalize, and silence dissent.)

The most telling passage of the article is this one:

For Trump’s supporters, declining to wear a mask is a visible way to demonstrate “that ‘I’m a Republican,’ or ‘I want businesses to start up again,’ or ‘I support the president,’ ” said Robert Kahn, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis who has studied Americans’ attitudes toward masks. ‘Masks will quickly become the new normal in blue states, but if social distancing continues through 2022, the mentality among Republicans could well change, too: If I can go to work and the cost of marginal improvement in my life is wearing a mask, maybe Americans of both parties do accommodate ourselves to it.’

And that’s the key. If we want to marginally improve our lives, we will submit. The masks aren’t the endgame. The point of the masks is to teach the American people that if we want to get some sense of normal, we have to accept abnormality.

If everyone is wearing a mask, it telegraphs a society-wide acceptance that the status quo has changed, and with that consensus other changes can come, too. Society will be primed to accept measures that most normal Americans would reject in any other time. Our new normal will include a permanent expansion of the bureaucracy and alarming new COVID-related regulations.

Masks Are of Limited Benefit

The truth is you aren’t irrational or obdurate if you are skeptical about masks. The “experts” have admitted that masks’ efficacy is usually negligible. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, in a “60 Minutes” interview early in this pandemic, dismissed masks as essentially useless.

“There is no reason to be walking around wearing a mask. When you are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel better, and might even block a droplet,” he said with almost an eyeroll, “but it’s not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are unintended consequences…”

Fauci may have changed his tune, but plenty of sensible doctors are still speaking up. Last week, a doctor in the Wall Street Journal pointed out that cloth masks—the type worn by the overwhelming majority of the population—are not very effective, echoing Fauci’s earlier admission. The WSJ author noted that even the N95 masks fall short: “They’re considered effective at blocking coronavirus particles only when they’re form fitted and tested to make sure there isn’t any leakage.”

In short, cloth masks are largely symbolic. The science hasn’t changed, but the agenda has.

Implementing mandatory mask policies across a society of 300 million because it makes some people feel better is absurd on its face. But the policy makes a lot of sense if you understand its purpose and usefulness to shift the American mindset.

Mandatory masks are a critical predicate conditioning us to accept abuses of our liberty. Mandatory masking provides the foundation on which governments continue to justify emergency measures and rule by executive fiat, and it creates a national mood of consent that America will accept indefinite government expansion because we face a “new normal.” READ MORE

Watch These Videos On Mandatory Masks Telling You That The “Majority Agrees’

More social conditioning from the global elites telling you that laws should be passed to make masks mandatory. Funny how it is always Liberals telling us this, right? Remember when they told us that “Hillary has a 99% chance’ of beating Trump in 2016? Day and night, they told us that ‘the majority’ agreed so it had to be true, right? Wrong, dead wrong. 

via Mandatory Masks Have Very Little To Do With Safety And Everything To Do With Social Control To Keep Us In A Constant State Of Confinement — Now The End Begins

‘Does This Virus Only Spread in Small Businesses?’: Protests Rising Against ‘Non-Essential’ Label — Faithwire

By Caitlin Burke

American small business owners are on the brink of bankruptcy, and they’re pushing back against the shutdown. They’re fed-up with being labeled “non-essential”. Now that states are reopening, why are these businesses still being put on hold?

Salons and barbershops in Connecticut were scheduled to get back to work on May 20, as part of the state’s Phase One reopening plan, but just two days before, the governor decided to pump the breaks.

“A lot of us here today did what was necessary and what was called on us to do. The rug just got pulled out from underneath us,” Skull & Combs owner Jason Bunce told the media during a protest in New Haven, CT.

Gov. Ned Lamont said his decision was in response to complaints from salon owners who needed more time to prepare for reopening. Many others, however, were counting on an income stream to return a week ago.

Hair Canvas Salon owner Erin Coyle tells CBN News she spent time and money ensuring her business followed the government’s guidelines.

“We separated the stations a little bit more, we put plexiglass dividers between the sinks, my husband built a hand sanitizing stand because you couldn’t find one anywhere…we ordered in a ton of bleach wipes, and alcohol and alcohol dispensers, you name it, face shields masks, extra gloves,” Coyle said.

Across the country, small business owners have already reached a tipping point. Many, frustrated that they’re being treated differently than the big national chains, like Target and Walmart.

Virginia Beach gym owner, Amanda Crowe, told CBN News that she too was expecting to reopen as a part of her state’s Phase One plan. Then at the last second, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam decided it wasn’t safe.

“I guess his big argument was that people would be touching everything so that’s why it’s not safe, and then the sweat, but again, I go to Walmart and open up the refrigerator and grab milk, no one sanitizing that handle, ya know touching all the bread. I would think the gym we can control that environment and it would be more sanitary and more clean and less risk for people to catch COVID or any other disease versus going to Walmart,” she said.

Petitions to reopen are circulating in dozens of states. ReOpen NY rallied in the city last week, demanding small businesses be allowed to get back to work and pushing back against the label, “non-essential.”

“Does this virus only spread in small businesses? And yes, I know, I’ve heard the argument, we are not essential. You know what, to my children, my small business is essential. It is with money from my brick and mortar store that I put food in their mouths and fill their bellies. Our businesses are essential to our families and to our communities. I can’t imagine what NY will look like if we don’t open now,” said Simcha Minkowitz, owner of Amor Fine Jewelry.

Meanwhile, in Connecticut, salon owners are again preparing to reopen, the latest date set by the governor: June 1.

“I’m absolutely terrified, I’m probably the most nervous person of this virus that I’ve met, but if I’m allowed to go back, I’m going back. I’m going to wear my mask, my face shield, my clients are going to wear their masks, we’re going to follow all the precautions that we’re told,” Coyle told CBN News.

While decisions on when and how to reopen are left up to individual states, President Trump has been critical of states he feels are moving too slowly, encouraging governors to allow those who want to work to go back and those who are still fearful, to stay home.

via ‘Does This Virus Only Spread in Small Businesses?’: Protests Rising Against ‘Non-Essential’ Label — Faithwire

China Tightens Grip on Hong Kong, Residents Fear Loss of Liberties: ‘A Deadly Blow to the Rights of People’ — Faithwire

By George Thomas

President Trump is vowing to take action against China over its latest move to tighten its grip on Hong Kong.

The communist government plans to impose new security laws severely curtailing human rights and other personal freedoms of residents in Hong Kong.

At the White House Tuesday, the president was asked if he would levy sanctions on China if Beijing moved against Hong Kong.

“We’re doing something now. I think you’ll find it very interesting. But I won’t be talking about it today,” the president said. “It’s something you’re going to be hearing about… before the end of the week – very powerfully I think.”

When the city was handed to the Chinese back in 1997, the idea was that Hong Kong would be under this ‘one country, two systems’ agreement for at least half a century. Now, it looks like China isn’t willing to wait.

“I don’t think people are optimistic,” said Yaqiu Wang, a China researcher for Human Rights Watch. “The national security law is dealing a deadly blow to the rights of people in Hong Kong.”

As Beijing announced days ago, plans to enforce sweeping new security laws, similar to the draconian measures used on the mainland, many feared it would be the end of Hong Kong as we know it.

“Beijing has essentially intervened directly and said we are not going to wait, we are going to pass this law here in Beijing which will apply to you Hong Kong,” Dean Cheng with The Heritage Foundation told CBN News. “Effectively, this is saying Hong Kong is no longer under a ‘one country, two systems’ approach, it is now fully integrated into China, despite the fact that we are not yet at 2047.”

Many Hong Kong residents are fearful at the thought of becoming another Chinese city and losing personal freedoms.

“I think it’s very ridiculous. They promised ‘One Country, Two Systems,’ but the content of the security law is basically implementing ‘One Country, One System’,” said Tiffany Chung, a resident of city.

After months of pro-democracy protests, experts see this move by China as a way to take greater security control of Hong Kong.

“I don’t think people are expecting that because the past year has proven that, absolutely that Beijing is not backing down because of protest, because of pressure,” said Wang.

“People understand that if the law is implemented, they will be likely be prosecuted and detained and even go to jail for speaking critically of the Hong Kong government or speaking critically of the Chinese Communist Party, for running for office, for going to the streets to protest as they have been doing in the past year,” added Wang.

Cheng says for China, the idea of ‘one country, two systems’ has always really meant one country over two systems.

“What this is going to mean is that freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, freedom of speech, all of these are much going to be in jeopardy and it also, in effect, nullifies the independence of the Hong Kong judicial system,” Cheng said.

China insists the new crackdown is needed to prevent secessionist and subversive activity, as well as foreign interference and terrorism.

Ahead of more pro-democracy protests this week, China’s top military commander in Hong Kong says his 10,000-strong army is ready to do whatever it takes.

“The garrison troops have the determination, confidence and capabilities to defend national sovereignty, security and development interests and safeguard long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong,” Chen Daoxiang, a Chinese Army Commander in Hong Kong, told reporters this week.

In Washington, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, want to sanction any Chinese official involved in enforcing the new laws in Hong Kong. The bill would also penalize banks and businesses that help enforce the law.

The White House is warning China against enacting the laws.

“If that happens there will be sanctions that will be imposed on Hong Kong and China. It is hard to see how Hong Kong can remain the Asian financial center that it has become if China takes over,” warned White House National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.

And now experts worry that if China moves to take over Hong Kong, Taiwan could be next on Beijing’s list.

“The reality is that China cracking down on Hong Kong means that Taiwan has even less reason to believe Chinese promises of autonomy and non-interference should the two reunify,” warned Cheng.

via China Tightens Grip on Hong Kong, Residents Fear Loss of Liberties: ‘A Deadly Blow to the Rights of People’ — Faithwire

EXPLAINED: The scandal at Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — Capstone Report

The scandal rocking Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) threatens Mohler’s legacy. It has exposed him as a political dissembler—a man willing to force desperate former employees turned out of work during the height of the Coronavirus Pandemic to sign a secret NDA muzzling them for life.

Classy.

Or, as Dr. Robert Gagnon described such moves, Sub-Christian.

Dr. Russell Fuller posted something that helps outline and simplify the allegations against Mohler and SBTS:

The liberal drift of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky has resulted in the seminary knowingly hiring, maintaining and supporting false teachers who have taught and published works supporting;
1. mythology in the Bible,
2. postmodernism denying the objective/stable meaning of a text and the provability/verifiability of the text (including a denial of a messianic paradigm),
3. social justice heresy designed to replace the gospel, and
4. critical race theory and intersectionality promoting secular values and corrupting the gospel,
while refusing any accountability or justification for allowing anti-Christian instruction, beliefs and conduct contrary to the Seminary’s Abstract of Principles.

These four points summarize the three video interviews of Dr. Fuller released by Jon Harris. Dr. Fuller alleges and provides evidence of his points that for standing against Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality that he was first reprimanded and then fired by Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

As a member of a Southern Baptist church, it is stunning that SBTS reprimanded Fuller for exercising his right as a member of an SBC church to write the head of an entity about issues involving that entity. This raises an important question: Does a church member surrender their right to petition our entity heads if they accept a job at one of our entities? If so, why do we allow entity employees an even greater political power of sitting as messengers at the SBC’s Annual Meeting?

Frankly, there is something wrong in allowing entity employees (and especially entity heads) to sit as Messengers and vote on trustees—the very people who will be assigned to supervise them.

Anyone drawing a salary, particularly a six-figure salary, at an SBC entity should not sit as a messenger.

However, we allow that, but reprimand Dr. Fuller for writing a letter to Al Mohler.

That’s outrageous.

It highlights Mohler’s view of himself—as sitting above the rest of his employees and the SBC. He can’t be bothered by the little people.

This is all about Critical Race Theory at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

What got Dr. Russell Fuller into trouble with SBC Elites was the stand against Critical Race Theory.

Let’s not deceive ourselves—it is clear that if Fuller’s complaints centered only on disputes over interpretation of the Book of Job and the objectivity of hermeneutics he would have been tolerated and not reprimanded. What irritated Mohler was Fuller’s attack on Critical Race Theory at Southern.

“Russell, you are an idiot,” Mohler yelled at Fuller in front of about 30 professors because Fuller attacked Provost Matthew Hall’s use of CRT.

Mohler’s dissembling & Critical Race Theory

Al Mohler said that Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality are Identity Politics and as such are “antithetical to the Gospel.” Yet, it is clear that Hall promotes and holds CRT views.

There is video evidence. See it here:

However, there is also Al Mohler’s witness against Hall.

Mohler removed a video posted by SBTS and scrubbed some of Hall’s writings. Mohler admitted this to The Federalist.

However, Hall never repudiated these words—only wrote an essay that did not address the key claims against him.

The key point here: Mohler knew Hall was promoting CRT and was not concerned about the actual teachings but only the impression of the public.

This is political dissembling of the highest order. It is why I compare Mohler to the vivid historical personage Winston S. Churchill described as Mr. Speaker Harley. Someone willing to do anything to gain and hold power. If you are unfamiliar with Harley, he is a vivid character throughout Churchill’s four-volume Life of Marlborough biography. (Churchill’s Life of Marlborough is one of the greatest works of history ever written.)

But, back to Mohler.

Mohler’s actions toward Fuller, Dr. Jim Orrick and Dr. Mark Coppenger speaks volumes about Mohler’s commitment to truth. Mohler weeded out conservative voices and promoted voices spewing the talking points of Identity Politics.

Mohler’s actions. Mohler’s dissembling. Mohler’s maneuvers. Mohler’s insults. These are the key parts of the SBTS scandal.

Fuller’s allegations

Dr. Fuller details his points about Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality and Social Justice in Video 3. There is even a montage of Matthew Hall, Jarvis Williams and Curtis Woods available here.

Dr. Fuller said, “Here’s the bottom line: CRT or any other secular philosophy cannot coexist with the gospel. We can love the one, but not the other. CRT corrupts and destroys the gospel.”

The postmodernism claim focuses on Dr. Jonathan Pennington’s alleged assertions that a text

Dr. Fuller said, “In his book, Reading the Gospels Wisely, he (Pennignton) writes, ‘That is, if meaning is supposedly stable and objectifiable from a text, obtained by using certain methods, then why does one rarely if ever find two interpreters who agree with each other – even contemporary interpreters with similar convictions, let alone diverse ones? Additionally, if the objective meaning of the text according to authorial intent could be discerned once and for all, then certainly we would have done so by now, wouldn’t we?’ This quote, and many others like it, places the interpretation and the authority of Scripture in doubt.

Let me add one thing about this quote. Pennington’s argument here is flawed. Because people disagree does not mean there is not an absolute meaning in a text. Also, it doesn’t mean that such a meaning cannot be extracted. Rather, disagreement is proof of nothing but disagreement. People disagree about all sorts of things: the Resurrection, morality, etc. However, it would be absurd and logically flawed to claim that because there are disagreements we could never judge moral claims.

As for the mythology claim, Dr. Fuller alleges that Dr. Hernandez teaches the author of the Book of Job included mythology in Scripture, denied the historicity of Job and asserted there are contradictions in Scripture. Fuller’s case is outlined in this document.

Of note to this discussion, Dr. Herandez writes in his dissertation: “Therefore, the idea that Job provides wisdom in presenting the contrary to that which was generally considered to be wise in the Bible and ancient Near East deserves further investigation.” (p. 289)

And, “The understanding of just retribution in the eschaton and the dichotomy between light and darkness to differentiate between good and evil emerge in early Christianity as well, which is evident in the writings of the New Testament (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Jn 1:5; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:4-5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46). Just retribution theology did not fade after Job—despite his harsh words against the doctrine.” (p. 289)

This appears to teach the Book of Job contradicts other parts of Scripture and is a key part of Dr. Fuller’s allegations.

Unfortunately, Dr. Fuller said that not one person at SBTS took the time to attempt to refute or correct his understanding of Dr. Hernadez’s work.

Helping the fired professors

Circling back to the key story in all of these subplots is this: Al Mohler offered severance to employees with decades of service to SBTS in exchange for a secret agreement that would muzzle them for life. A few months of pay and benefits and all they had to do was sacrifice their convictions.

We know Dr. Russell Fuller and Dr. Jim Orrick rejected such a bargain. They chose principle over lucre.

You can help them. Dr. Tom Ascol created a GoFundMe to help the fired professors. As of this morning, $16,899 was raised out of the $40,000 goal. If you care about truth, you should give something to aid these brave men.

 

via EXPLAINED: The scandal at Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — Capstone Report

May 27th The D. L. Moody Year Book

 

Nor idolaters … shall inherit the kingdom of God.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

IT is clear that idolaters are not going to enter the kingdom of God. I may make an idol of my business; I may make an idol of the wife of my bosom; I may make idols of my children. I do not think you need go to heathen countries to find men guilty of idolatry. Anything that comes between me and God is an idol—anything, I don’t care what it is; business is all right in its place, and there is no danger of my loving my family too much if I love God more; but God must have the first place; and if He has not, then the idol is set up.[1]

 

[1] Moody, D. L. (1900). The D. L. Moody Year Book: A Living Daily Message from the Words of D. L. Moody. (E. M. Fitt, Ed.) (pp. 93–94). East Northfield, MA: The Bookstore.

May 27 The Interpreter: Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible

May 27.—Morning. [Or October 20.]
“Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house.”

THE consecration of Solomon’s temple brings to our mind his father’s delightful Psalm, in which he expressed his love to the worship of the Lord his God.

Psalm 84

How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! (More delightful than tongue can tell are the assemblies for divine worship. They are lovely in prospect, lovely at the time, and lovely to the memory afterwards. Under heaven, no place is so heavenly as the church of the living God.)

My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

Do we feel the same burning desire after God? If so, we shall not need urging to attend his worship. Some need to be whipped to worship, but David is here crying for it; he needed no clatter of bells to ring him in to the service, he carried his bell in his own bosom.

Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God. (He envied the little birds which lodged about the tabernacle. When far away from the Lord’s altars he wished he had wings to fly to them, as the sparrows did, or build near them after the manner of the swallows.)

Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

He wished he could be always employed about the sacred tent, for he thought that even the menial servants of such a Lord would be always praising him. Dwelling so near him, their joy would never cease, their praises would sound forth both day and night.

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. (Or, “in whose heart are thy ways.” None find joy in worship but those who throw their hearts into it. Neither prayer, nor praise, nor the hearing of the word will be profitable to persons who have left their hearts behind them.)

Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

The pilgrims who went up to the temple found refreshment in the dreariest part of the road, even the gloomy vale of tears became delightful to them. They made desolate valleys to be as cheerful as the wells where men and women were accustomed to meet for social intercourse. What will not holy fellowship and hearty praises do?

They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

God’s people hold on their way, grow stronger, and at last reach their journey’s end, for they have an almighty Convoy who will not suffer them to fail.

O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.

10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. (The doorkeeper is first in and last out, and he has less comfort than anyone, yet David would sooner have the lowest place in God’s house, than the highest in the tents of sin. Quaint old Secker says, “Happy are those persons whom God will use as besoms to sweep out the dust from his temple, or who are allowed to tug at an oar of the boat wherein Christ and his people are embarked.”)

11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. (What a great promise, or set of promises! Here we have all we need for all time, yea, and for eternity. What an encouragement to pray! If all things are freely given to us of God, let us open our mouths wide in our petitions. What more can God himself say than he has said in this most precious verse?)

12 O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

How pleasant, how divinely fair,

O Lord of hosts, thy dwellings are!

With long desire my spirit faints

To meet the assemblies of thy saints.

My flesh would rest in thine abode,

My panting heart cries out for God;

My God! my King! why should I be

So far from all my joys and thee?

May 27.—Evening. [Or October 21.]
“My beloved is mine, and I am his.”

IT is possible that in those golden days when Solomon walked with God, he was inspired to write the matchless book of Canticles, which is the Holy of holies of the Scriptures, standing like the tree of life in the midst of the garden of inspiration. The song is highly allegorical, and describes Christ and his church as a bride and bridegroom who sing to each other and of each other. The passage we are about to read is a dialogue.

Solomon’s Song 2

The Bridegroom first speaks, and says—

I AM the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.

As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. (Who can this be but Jesus, in whose person the rose and lily are combined?

“White is his soul, from blemish free,

Red with the blood he shed for me.”

He paints his church as a lone lily growing amidst a wilderness of thorns, among them but not of them, her beauties being all the more conspicuous by contrast.)

Then the Bride or the church exclaims—

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (The golden citron excels all other trees, and Jesus is far more excellent than all others. Shade and fruit, protection and provision, are found in him. He is all in all to us who believe in him.)

He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.

Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. (Love to Jesus sometimes becomes so vehement a passion that the soul cannot bear it, and the bodily frame is ready to swoon under the supreme excitement.)

His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.

7, 8, 9 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please. (The spouse now hears the voice of her husband, and rejoices to see him coming to her with all the sacred haste of omnipotent love.) The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills. My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.

10 My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.

11 For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;

12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

13 The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. (When doubts and fears, trials and distresses are over and the heart is full of music, we should go forth in holy fellowship, and delight ourselves with the Lord Jesus. Dark days may come, let us spend our joyful seasons in the most profitable manner, walking with our Lord in the light while the light lasts.)

The Bridegroom still speaks, and calls to his beloved, saying—

14 ¶ O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely. (Come out from the hiding-places of fear or worldliness and own the Lord.)

15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.

The church sings again—

16, 17 My beloved is mine, and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether [or division]. (If we have lost the presence of the Lord, it is our duty and our privilege to cry to him to return swiftly and triumphantly, like the fleet roe which overleaps mountains and defies all difficulties.)

Yes! my Beloved to my sight

Shows a sweet mixture, red and white:

All human beauties, all divine,

In my Beloved meet and shine.

All over glorious is my Lord,

Must be beloved, and yet adored;

His worth if all the nations knew,

Sure the whole earth would love him too.[1]

 

[1] Spurgeon, C. H. (1964). The Interpreter: Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible (pp. 309–310). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

May 27 Thoughts for the quiet hour

 

Whatsoever ye do.… do all in the name of the Lord Jesus

Col. 3:17

Do little things as if they were great, because of the majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ, who dwells in thee; and do great things as if they were little and easy, because of His omnipotence.

Pascal[1]

 

[1] Hardman, S. G., & Moody, D. L. (1997). Thoughts for the quiet hour. Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing.

They’ve earned someone like Kayleigh – American Thinker

It’s obvious to me that many in this press corps are political activists.

In the age of instant news, do we even need a daily White House press briefing?  

The latest from the talking heads club is that some, from Chris Wallace to Jonah Goldberg, find Kayleigh McEnany a little “Indefensible And Grotesque.”

I’ve seen a couple of Kaleigh’s performances and it’s hard to think of her as “grotesque.”   She is self-assured, but grotesque?

After all, this is a group of reporters who ask questions like comparing the pandemic death totals to Vietnam casualties or another blamed the president because someone listened to him in February and died of the virus.   And then there is the CBS lady who took off her mask to play the “Chinese card.”

It’s obvious to me that many in this press corps are political activists, such as Jim Acosta of CNN.  They are confrontational to make news rather than to obtain information for readers and viewers.   They are like the umpire who makes controversial calls just to lead the sports report.

Do you understand now why President Trump is just giving them a taste of their own medicine?  He’s tired of political activists with press passes.

— Read on www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/theyve_earned_someone_like_kayleigh.html

Jerry Nadler in 2004: ‘Paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud’ | Fox News

If President Trump is seeking a high-ranking Democrat to side with him against mail-in election ballots – in a bid to build bipartisan opposition to the idea in Congress — he could try contacting U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler.

Trump’s “Keyboard Warriors” Get The Story While The Legacy Media Ignores #Obamagate | Zero Hedge

CrowdStrike’s circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We’ll soon know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say so.

Submitted by Thomas Farnan

CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently declassified documents show.

CrowdStrike’s president Shawn Henry testified, “There’s not evidence that [documents and emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There’s circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.”

This was a crucial revelation because the thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had definitely proven a Russian hack.

This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.

The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive forensic testing.

THE COVER UP.

On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails to an unknown entity in a “spear phishing” scam. This has been called a “hack,” but it was not.  Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the internet.

The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They showedelection fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.

There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that supposition to explain the emails.

On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council (remember that name), had issued a dispatch under the banner headline: “US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia’s Infiltration of European Political Parties.”

The lede was concise: “American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed.”

There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph, including that “James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence” was investigating whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in “Russian meddling.”

The dispatch spoke of “A dossier” that revealed “Russian influence operations” in Europe. This was the first time trippy words like “Russian meddling” and “dossier” would appear together in the American lexicon.

Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five Eyes Agreement, foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump campaign.

Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to provide assistance.

On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails pending publication.”

Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a story, headlined, “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump.”

The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the internet and announced:

Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by “sophisticated” hacker groups.

I’m very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy, very easy.

Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers. But he certainly wasn’t the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC’s servers.

Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I’ve been in the DNC’s networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC’s network.

Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun. In raw form, the opposition research was one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely reported the document now contained “Russian fingerprints.”

The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded an abundance of Russian “error “messages. In the document’s metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky, written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post “)))” is the Russian version of a smiley face used commonly on social media. In addition, the blog’s author deliberately used a Russian VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide national affiliation.

CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, “skilled operational tradecraft.”

There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post’s article that appeared the previous day.

THE FRAME UP.

Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.

Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.

Somehow, the ruse worked.

Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead reported CrowdStrike’s bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.

Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent fixing the primaries.  His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.

Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has “no idea” who was behind the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a “Joint Statement” that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that it was the Russians. 

Hillary Clinton took advantage of this “intelligence assessment” in the October debate to portray Trump as Putin’s stooge”

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.  And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” said Clinton.

The media’s fact checkers excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been learned that the “17 intelligence agencies” claptrap was always false.  Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John Brennan.

Somehow, Trump won anyway.

Those who assert that it is a “conspiracy theory” to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.

On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian separatists.

Voice of America later determined the claim was false, and CrowdStrike retracted its finding.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense was forced to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and hired.

Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference card during the transition to try to end Trump’s presidency before it started. As I wrote in December 2017:

Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.

That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats—including gardeners and chauffeurs—for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.

The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn’s conversation with the ambassador, hoping to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.

The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to listen in on a successor’s transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.

How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?

Let’s establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the lame duck administration….

….If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He should have said, “President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office.”

That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an accommodation to the Russians.

The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his conversation with the ambassador. Drat!

They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI, supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.

If you’re Flynn, you say, “Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no collusion and when do you want to meet.”

What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the election. It would be a test pitting Flynn’s memory against the transcript.

Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the conversation with the ambassador—he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about it was to cross him up.

That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected president.

Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to be about the election.

He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare them to his answers. That would be illegal.

Exhibit 5 to the DOJ’s recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama administration’s bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The plotters admit, essentially, that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin’s interference.

After Trump’s inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike’s dubious conclusion that Russia had interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump and the movement that put him in office.

Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment politicians and pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated Russian intrigue, at the expense of the Trump presidency.

This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB-esque intrigue, then Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not only racist losers, they were also Putin’s unwitting stooges.

As I first noted in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us chided as “crazies” who doubted Russian interference – including Trump himself – were right all along.

In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like here, here, here, here, and here. That is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his “keyboard warriors.” As Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the White House press corps has completely missed the story.

This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is destructive.

If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony Russian intrigue, the plotters will say they were justified to investigate it.

The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.

CrowdStrike’s circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We’ll soon know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say so.

Why the Left is Weaponizing Science – American Thinker

Science was never intended to be used as a weapon to bludgeon or intimidate dissenting opinions into silence. However, politicians and other authority figures have figured out that the only sure way to decisively win an argument is not to have one. They have begun to experience success by weaponizing science in an effort to silence any intellectual opposition. The basic strategy is simple and straightforward: anyone who dares to challenge the conventional wisdom (typically presented as the consensus opinion of scientists) will be mocked and ridiculed as “science deniers.” For example, anyone who thinks it might be possible that humans did not evolve from apes is an evolution denier. Anyone who dares question the veracity of the climate knowledge offered by little Greta Thunberg about the alleged truth of climate change will be called climate deniers. And now anyone who dares question blind trust in a horribly flawed computer model predicting a COVID-19 pandemic that hasn’t exactly materialized is being called a science denier.That is a perfect, appalling unsolicited and unhelpful comment coming from an ivory tower-dwelling “expert” like Mr. Pinker, a professed atheist about whom it might be argued has an abnormal fear of death. No, Mr. Pinker, my desire to see the economy growing robustly once again has little or nothing to do with any desire to see Heaven in the immediate future, and everything to do with not wanting to see family, friends, or even foes suffering needless and unnecessary pain due to loss of income. It’s true we’re all going to die, sooner or later and never been a question of “if” it might happen, but “when,” and I’m willing to take one for the team if absolutely necessary. Not everyone is able survive for several months without income.

— Read on www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/05/why_the_left_is_weaponizing_science.html

China will act against foreign interference over Hong Kong security law – Foreign Ministry — RT Newsline

China will take necessary countermeasures to combat foreign interference amid deliberations over the new Hong Kong security legislation, the Foreign Ministry in Beijing said on Wednesday.

Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian made the remarks in response to a question about US President Donald Trump’s comments on Tuesday that Washington is working on a strong response to the legislation that will be announced before the end of the week.

Trump’s economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, called Beijing’s actions “very disturbing,” adding that Washington would welcome back any American companies from Hong Kong or China’s mainland. “We will do what we can for full expensing and pay the cost of moving if they return their supply chains and their production to the US,” he said.

— Read on www.rt.com/newsline/489865-china-act-foreign-interference/

Coronavirus “Cover-Up” Is China’s Chernobyl: White House National Security Adviser | Zero Hedge

“It was a cover-up. And we’ll get to the bottom of it eventually…”

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The White House national security advisor Robert O’Brien has compared China’s response to the coronavirus outbreak to the Soviet Union’s cover-up of the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

“They unleashed a virus on the world that’s destroyed trillions of dollars in American economic wealth that we’re having to spend to keep our economy alive, to keep Americans afloat during this virus,” O’Brien said in an NBC interview.

“The cover-up that they did of the virus is going to go down in history, along with Chernobyl.” O’Brien added.

“We’ll see an HBO special about it 10 or 15 years from now.” he urged, referring to the recent award winning dramatisation of the 1986 disaster.

“This is a real problem and it cost many, many thousands of lives in America and around the world because the real information was not allowed to get out,” O’Brien further proclaimed.

“It was a cover-up. And we’ll get to the bottom of it eventually.” O’Brien asserted.

O’Brien’s comments come as Shi Zhengli, the the deputy director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, warned that COVID-19 is ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ of unknown deadly viruses, while again denying that her lab had anything to do with the outbreak.

“If we want to prevent human beings from suffering from the next infectious disease outbreak, we must go in advance to learn of these unknown viruses carried by wild animals in nature and give early warnings.” Shi said, adding “If we don’t study them there will possibly be another outbreak.”

As details continue to emerge, China admitted recently that it did order laboratories to destroy samples of the new coronavirus in the early stage of the outbreak.

The destruction of the samples was first noted back in February. It was also noted that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting controversial experiments into animal-to-human transmission of bat coronaviruses, altered their database in an apparent attempt to distance the lab from the outbreak.

The alteration was carried out just two days before a gene sequencing lab was ordered by the Health and Medical Commission of Hubei Province to destroy it’s coronavirus samples.

In addition, a scientific study in Austria has found that SARS-CoV-2 was likely created in a lab, barring some “remarkable coincidence” that led to the virus naturally evolving to be optimised to attack human cells.

The authors of the study believe this means that the virus “became specialized for human cell penetration by living previously in human cells, quite possibly in a laboratory.”

China urges army to prepare for combat as Hong Kong protests resume – Business Insider

Reuters

  • Chinese President Xi Jinping urged his army to increase its readiness for “armed combat” as officials say the country faces new security threats.
  • Xi told Chinese military officers on Tuesday that it was “necessary to step up preparations for armed combat” and improve the military’s ability to carry out missions. 
  • Xi’s comments came as China announced a 6.6% spending increase to its national defense budget. 
  • China is planning to pass controversial national security laws for Hong Kong on Thursday in an apparent effort to crack down on anti-Beijing sentiment. 
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Chinese President Xi Jinping urged his army to increase its preparedness for “armed combat” as protests in Hong Kong ramp up over a proposed new law that would effectively strip away the city’s autonomy.

Xi on Tuesday told Chinese military officers on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress (NPC) — an annual weeklong gathering of China’s top legislative bodies — that the military must “explore ways of training and preparing for war” amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“It is necessary to explore ways of training and preparing for war because epidemic control efforts have been normalized,” Xi was quoted as saying by the state-run Xinhua news agency, according to South China Morning Post.  

According to Xinhua, Xi added that it was “necessary to step up preparations for armed combat” and improve the military’s ability to carry out missions.

Reuters/Pool

Xi also ordered the military to “think about worst-case scenarios, scale up training and battle preparedness, promptly and effectively deal with all sorts of complex situations and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests,” according to Xinhua, paraphrasing Xi.

The comments came as China announced a 6.6% spending increase to its national defense budget. 

According to SCMP, China’s defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian told reporters on Tuesday that China’s increased budget was due to what he said were enhanced national security risks.

Wu singled out Taiwan, the self-ruling island nation that Beijing insists is part of China. Taiwan has ramped up its relations with the US in recent months, much to China’s ire.

“The situation against separatism is getting grimmer,” Wu told reporters Tuesday. “We have to make economic calculations but above that we have to make security calculations when we consider military spending.”

REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

The order comes as Hong Kong protests restart

China’s focus on defense spending and preparedness comes as it moves forward with a set of controversial national security laws for Hong Kongmeant to crack down on anti-Beijing sentiment.

The new proposal to target secession, subversion, and foreign interference in Hong Kong, is expected to be passed Thursday at the NPC.

The head of China’s garrison in Hong Kong, Chen Daoxiang, also vowed on Tuesday that the military outpost would protect China’s national security interests and would “act with firm resolve” to implement China’s plans for the city. 

The aggressive move by China has prompted thousands to take to the streets in Hong Kong over the weekend, resulting in police officers firing tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray onto crowds that gathered at the busy shopping district of Causeway Bay.

Alda Tsang / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

On Tuesday, Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam addressed the outcry over the new proposal, warning that while people have a right to protest in the city, their freedom is not unlimited. 

“We are a very free society, so for the time being, people have the freedom to say what they want to say,” she said, adding: “Rights and freedoms are not absolute.” 

Ben Bland, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute and author of “Generation HK: Seeking Identity in China’s Shadow,” told Business Insider that China’s decision to thrust these new laws onto Hong Kong “represents a major blow to Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy.”

The US has also put China on notice over the move. On Sunday, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that China’s actions indicated it was “going to basically take over Hong Kong,” and warned that it could spark US sanctions.

“If they do,” he said, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would “likely be unable to certify that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy, and if that happens, there will be sanctions that will be imposed on Hong Kong and China.”

— Read on www.businessinsider.com/china-military-prepare-for-combat-npc-hong-kong-taiwan-2020-5

How Can I Be Assured of My Salvation? — Key Life Articles

Quite often, the Christian who struggles with the assurance of his or her salvation is actually struggling with feelings… versus facts. You may not feel like a Christian; however, if you have accepted Jesus Christ then, the fact is, your salvation is secure and sure. Not only that. The fact is that you are loved, forgiven and accepted by the God of the universe.

You may not feel God’s presence. While it may be frustrating for us, from our human perspective, more often than not, God meets Christians with only “a still, small voice”… if that. The problem is, we expect God to meet us, instead, in grand, emotional and miraculous ways. At those times of struggle, it’s helpful to remember 1 Kings 19:11-12, “The Lord said, ‘Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.’ Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.”

When we question God’s work in our life, the assurance of our salvation and the implications of faith, sometimes that question reflects a classic Christian problem, and that is the problem of missing the clear teaching of the New Testament on God’s grace made possible in Jesus Christ. There is no way to “fall off the path”… simply because of God’s grace and love for you.

Grace is a function of God’s love; it is not based on our actions or behavior. As Christians, we have been called to live in the freedom of Christ—His gift to us. The fact is, as hard as it is to accept at certain times, Christ has already paid for our sin, struggles and guilt. Shame should lead us back to God, but it often causes us to turn from Him.

As a Christian, your natural desire is to please God—even when you continue to mess up and to struggle—not because He will punish you if you don’t please Him, but because of His great love for you. The point is this: Our obedience comes from freedom… not freedom from obedience.

Remember that no one is always content or happy or even aware of God’s work in his or her life. (Aside from actual life right now, the Bible is full of examples—David in the Psalms, Job and Paul, among others). The problem with being human is that so often our feelings (or lack of them) get in the way. So, if I don’t feel like a Christian today… if I don’t feel joyous today… if I don’t feel loving today… if I don’t feel God’s presence today, then, it must follow that I’m not living my life as a Christian and something must be wrong. That mistaken thinking is just not true! Just because you don’t feel a certain way today has nothing to do with the facts—of God’s presence, of His acceptance, love and forgiveness, or of your salvation.

Remember that no one is always content or happy or even aware of God’s work in his or her life.

As an aside, the problem of feelings is especially true if we’re in the midst of pain, stress or trouble. This tends to directly “color” our view of life which, in turn, affects our relationship with God. Other things affect our relationship with God—our relationships with our family (especially with our parents), past issues, physical pain, relationship/job/family problems, anxiety, depression and the like.

Let me ask you a few questions: If you knew you were forgiven, no matter what, would you then find the joy restored? If you knew that God loved you and accepted you, no matter what, would you then be free? If you knew that you belonged to God and that He would never let you go, no matter what, would it be easier to worship and serve Him as Lord? If you answered “yes” to those three questions, then your problem is solved. Why? Because if you are a Christian, you are forgiven. You are loved and accepted. You belong to God and He will never let you go. Check out the following Scriptures (among others)… Matthew 11:28-29; John 10:27-30; Romans 8:1-2; 8:28-39; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 as well as 1 John 1:9.

When Christians struggle with the assurance of their salvation, it reminds me of a swimmer who is drowning. The more that swimmer flails his arms and legs in a desperate attempt to save his life, the closer he comes to drowning… When, all along, if the swimmer were just to relax and let the water hold him up, he would be safe. The water—God Himself—can hold you up and you can trust in that fact.

via How Can I Be Assured of My Salvation? — Key Life Articles

Mandatory Masks Aren’t About Safety, They’re About Social Control — The Federalist

Mandatory Masks Aren’t About Safety, They’re About Social Control
To those looking to benefit politically from emergencies, COVID presents an opportunity to advance plans targeted to transform American freedom and the American way of life.

On May 26, Virginia’s Gov. Ralph Northam announced that wearing masks outside one’s home will be mandatory effective May 29. He first hinted he might issue a masking order a week ago, likely to test the water.

A new refrain in public discourse is growing in volume by the day: “Things will never be the same.” The certainty with which we are assured of this pre-determined future is perplexing. Whether or not “things” will ever be the same is not at all clear, but that some people hope things will never be the same is certain.

To those looking to benefit politically from emergencies, COVID presents an opportunity to advance plans targeted to transform American freedom and the American way of life. Mandatory-masking policies provide a valuable foundation to weaponize the virus against American liberty—now and in the future.

Demanding Freedoms Helps Ensure Them

Much of our freedom is maintained by the collective resistance of the American mood. When the Minnesota governor excluded churches from his Phase I reopening plan, Catholic and Lutheran leadership announced, through counsel, that their churches would reopen with or without the state’s blessing.

The governor’s resulting about-face was probably not due to a legal epiphany. Rather, he understood he’d pushed the envelope too far. Minnesotans wouldn’t put up with any further abuse of their religious freedoms.

Would Virginians, outside of the blue D.C. suburbs, be willing to accept a masking order? To take our freedom from us, people with anti-American agendas have to mobilize some initial quorum of consent from the population.

Masking Is Meant to Build an Opinion Cascade

Mandatory masking seeks to build that consent. In addition to extending the fiction that we are in an emergency sufficient to trigger the extra-constitutional authority of local and state executives, mandatory masking acts as a peer pressure-fueled signal that encourages conformity to our coming “new normal.”

An April 18 article in the Washington Post underscores the strategy, presenting the mask controversy as a left versus right debate. People resisting mandatory mask policies are, per usual, painted as unreasonable, headstrong, and backward—displaying ignorant American bravado while rejecting science and good sense. (That caricature is itself a tool to mock, marginalize, and silence dissent.)

The most telling passage of the article is this one:

For Trump’s supporters, declining to wear a mask is a visible way to demonstrate “that ‘I’m a Republican,’ or ‘I want businesses to start up again,’ or ‘I support the president,’ ” said Robert Kahn, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis who has studied Americans’ attitudes toward masks. ‘Masks will quickly become the new normal in blue states, but if social distancing continues through 2022, the mentality among Republicans could well change, too: If I can go to work and the cost of marginal improvement in my life is wearing a mask, maybe Americans of both parties do accommodate ourselves to it.’

And that’s the key. If we want to marginally improve our lives, we will submit. The masks aren’t the endgame. The point of the masks is to teach the American people that if we want to get some sense of normal, we have to accept abnormality.

If everyone is wearing a mask, it telegraphs a society-wide acceptance that the status quo has changed, and with that consensus other changes can come, too. Society will be primed to accept measures that most normal Americans would reject in any other time. Our new normal will include a permanent expansion of the bureaucracy and alarming new COVID-related regulations.

Masks Are of Limited Benefit

The truth is you aren’t irrational or obdurate if you are skeptical about masks. The “experts” have admitted that masks’ efficacy is usually negligible. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, in a “60 Minutes” interview early in this pandemic, dismissed masks as essentially useless.

“There is no reason to be walking around wearing a mask. When you are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel better, and might even block a droplet,” he said with almost an eyeroll, “but it’s not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are unintended consequences…”

Fauci may have changed his tune, but plenty of sensible doctors are still speaking up. Last week, a doctor in the Wall Street Journal pointed out that cloth masks—the type worn by the overwhelming majority of the population—are not very effective, echoing Fauci’s earlier admission. The WSJ author noted that even the N95 masks fall short: “They’re considered effective at blocking coronavirus particles only when they’re form fitted and tested to make sure there isn’t any leakage.”

In short, cloth masks are largely symbolic. The science hasn’t changed, but the agenda has.

Implementing mandatory mask policies across a society of 300 million because it makes some people feel better is absurd on its face. But the policy makes a lot of sense if you understand its purpose and usefulness to shift the American mindset.

Mandatory masks are a critical predicate conditioning us to accept abuses of our liberty. Mandatory masking provides the foundation on which governments continue to justify emergency measures and rule by executive fiat, and it creates a national mood of consent that America will accept indefinite government expansion because we face a “new normal.”

Molly McCann is Of Counsel with Sidney Powell, P.C. and lives and works in the Washington, D.C. metro area. In her free time, Molly is active in conservative policy and directs the Phyllis Schlafly Virginia Constitution Center, organizing events for young professionals.

via Mandatory Masks Aren’t About Safety, They’re About Social Control — The Federalist

God’s Word Is Our Standard — Ligonier Ministries Blog

If someone claims to represent the Lord and yet seeks to lead others away from God’s written Word, that person must be rejected. In this brief clip, W. Robert Godfrey teaches that Scripture is our ultimate standard of truth, just as it was in the days of Moses.

Transcript:

Now, when we get to the middle of Deuteronomy, at the top of our step pyramid we’ll see that Moses says one of the tests of a true prophet is if he says something and it comes true, then that’s a sign he’s a true prophet. And that’s one test. But here, he’s giving another test, a test that almost seems contradictory, because here he says, “If there’s a prophet and he gives you a sign and a wonder…” Now what does that mean? If there’s a prophet who really performs miracles. Moses isn’t going into how he performs those miracles. He’s not raising the question, are they real miracles or false miracles? He’s saying, in effect, let’s grant for a moment the guy performs a real miracle and, therefore, seems to be able to be a true prophet with power, able to say what’s going to happen, and then it happens. If we only had that test of a prophet, we would say, “Well, if a prophet comes along and performs a miracle, he must be right.” But Moses here is preparing us and adding another test, and he’s saying, “It doesn’t matter how powerful a prophet seems to be. If he wants to lead you into idolatry, you’re not to follow him.” If he has miraculous powers, it doesn’t prove anything if he’s leading you against the Word. And what Moses is really saying here is the Word is always the primary test. Power is not the primary test. The Word is the primary test. So, no matter how powerful the prophet seems, no matter what miracles he may appear to be able to do, if he’s leading you against the Word – and particularly, if he’s leading you against the faithful, proper worship of the one true God – you are to reject that prophet with all your heart.

via God’s Word Is Our Standard — Ligonier Ministries Blog