“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Sean Hannity on his show tonight mentioned that approximately 10,000 Americans are left stranded at the airport in Kabul Afghanistan.
They can’t get out of the country.
Sean Hannity: “Tonight as we speak there are approximately 10,000 Americans that are still at Kabul’s International Airport desperately attempting to flee the country. Joe, what are you doing? 6,000 US soldiers are in the process of reentering Afghanistan.”
Meanwhile, Joe Biden came out of hiding for a 16 minute speech and then went back on vacation.
1 Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of the mighty,Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due to His name;Worship the LORD in holy array. Psalms 29:1-2 (NASB)
Much of the confusion within the visible church along with watered down versions of the gospel being preached rooted in pragmatism are due to the proponents of such things seeking glory for themselves. A genuine and proper handling of God’s Word and the Gospel will always be done within the context of ascribing all to the Lord for His glory alone.
C. H. Spurgeon
“Give unto the Lord the glory due unto His name.”—Psalm 29:2.
OD’S glory is the result of His nature and acts. He is glorious in His character, for there is such a store of everything that is holy, and good, and lovely in God, that He must be glorious. The actions which flow from His character are also glorious; but while He intends that they should manifest to His creatures His goodness, and mercy, and justice, He is equally concerned that the glory associated with them should be given only to Himself. Nor is there aught in ourselves in which we may glory; for who maketh us to differ from another? And what have we that we did not receive from the God of all grace? Then how careful ought we to be to walk humbly before the Lord! The moment we glorify ourselves, since there is room for one glory only in the universe, we set ourselves up as rivals to the Most High. Shall the insect of an hour glorify itself against the sun which warmed it into life? Shall the potsherd exalt itself above the man who fashioned it upon the wheel? Shall the dust of the desert strive with the whirlwind? Or the drops of the ocean struggle with the tempest? Give unto the Lord, all ye righteous, give unto the Lord glory and strength; give unto Him the honour that is due unto His name. Yet it is, perhaps, one of the hardest struggles of the Christian life to learn this sentence—”Not unto us, not unto us, but unto Thy name be glory.”1 It is a lesson which God is ever teaching us, and teaching us sometimes by most painful discipline. Let a Christian begin to boast, “I can do all things,” without adding “through Christ which strengtheneth me,” and before long he will have to groan, “I can do nothing,” and bemoan himself in the dust. When we do anything for the Lord, and He is pleased to accept of our doings, let us lay our crown at His feet, and exclaim, “Not I, but the grace of God which was with me!”21Psalm 115:1 21 Corinthians 15:10 Soli Deo Gloria!
As Taliban forces rapidly assume control over large portions of Afghanistan, a heartbreaking video showing an Afghan girl crying over the sad state of affairs in her country has gone viral on social media.
“We don’t count because we were born in Afghanistan,” the unnamed girl says through tears in the video first sharedby Iranian-American journalist and human rights activist Masih Alinejad.
“I cannot help crying. I have to wipe my tears to be able to film this video,” she goes on to say.
“No one cares about us,” she adds. “We’ll die slowly in history.”
As of Monday afternoon, the video, which has evoked sympathy from many, has been viewed nearly 2 million times on Twitter.
“We don’t count because we’re from Afghanistan. We’ll die slowly in history”Tears of a hopeless Afghan girl whose… https://t.co/FpsACc7XpK— Masih Alinejad (@AlinejadMasih) 1628866418.0
Alinejad, a frequent critic of the global oppression of women, wrote in the tweet’s caption: “My heart breaks for women of Afghanistan. The world has failed them. History will write this.”
The Taliban’s stunning takeover of the Middle Eastern nation has left many fearing what life will be like under the terrorist militant organization’s rule. Afghanis have demonstrated their desperation in recent days by jumping on air-bound U.S. planes only to fall hundreds of feet to their death.
Yet while life will assuredly be more difficult for many members of society, women are in line to lose many of the rights they have historically enjoyed. It is well-documented that under the Taliban’s previous rule in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, women were subject to particularly harsh treatment.
The U.S. Department of State reported in 2001 that “the Taliban regime cruelly reduced women and girls to poverty, worsened their health, and deprived them of their right to an education, and many times the right to practice their religion.”
The regime also “perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women, including rape, abduction, and forced marriage,” the State Department report continued. “Some families resorted to sending their daughters to Pakistan or Iran to protect them.”
Tens of thousands of women reportedly had “no source of income” and “many were reduced to selling all of their possessions and begging in the streets, or worse, to feed their families.”
“The Taliban’s return is catastrophic for women,” The Atlantic reported on Monday, noting that women who have fought hard for their freedom “stand to lose everything.”
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has already said he is “deeply disturbed by early indications that the Taliban are imposing severe restrictions on human rights in the areas under their control, particularly targeting women and journalists.”
“It is particularly horrifying and heartbreaking to see reports of the hard-won rights of Afghan girls and women being ripped away from them,” he noted.
China’s military bioaerosol research and a test that may have begun the COVID-19 pandemic
In an article recently published on The Gateway Pundit, a source inside China during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and familiar with the operations of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) claimed that a test release of the virus was conducted during the 2019 Military World Games, which was held in Wuhan from October 18–27, 2019.
According to that source, the subsequent outbreak in Wuhan was entirely unexpected. That is, there was no accidental laboratory leak, but the unintended COVID-19 spread among the Chinese population of Wuhan for which the PLA had vastly underestimated its transmissibility.
If there was an environmental test of COVID-19 by the PLA, whether at the 2019 Military World Games or elsewhere, expertise in the areas of environmental microorganism surveillance and the analysis of the spread of viral disease in human populations would be essential.
In recent years, the PLA has made extraordinary efforts to fulfill those requirements, starting with the fusion of military and civilian bioaerosol research, which was initiated at a joint symposium between the PLA and Peking University held on January 8-9, 2017.
Everyone should accept the fact that in China there is no difference between military and civilian research.The fusion of those research and development sectors was mandated by the 2016 Chinese Communist Party’s Thirteenth Five-Year Plan.
The January 2017 meeting entitled “Peking University Military-civilian Fusion Bioaerosol Symposium” was organized by Mao-sheng Yao of Peking University and Shun-xiang Huang of the PLA’s Institute for Chemical Defense.
The news report of the symposium cited over two dozen different Chinese universities joining the PLA Institute of Chemical Defense, the PLA Veterinary Institute, the PLA Academy of Military Medical Sciences and the PLA 302nd Hospital to establish a strategic plan for bioaerosol military-civilian integration and avenues of cooperation.
If there was a test release of COVID-19 into the environment, one that precipitated the pandemic, Mao-sheng Yao and Shun-xiang Huang were likely involved.
Mao-sheng Yao is an expert in the surveillance and measurement of microorganisms in the environment, who, incidentally, was entirely educated in U.S. universities, receiving a Master’s degree from the University of Alabama, a doctoral degree from Rutgers University and postdoctoral training at Yale University.
In December 2019, Mao-sheng Yao was granted a Chinese patent entitled “Method for rapidly detecting pathogenic microorganisms in air and respiratory tract on site.”
Shun-xiang Huang is an expert on the spread of viral disease in human populations. In December 2020, he and his colleagues at the PLA Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Institute published an article on how an influenza epidemic would spread in the U.S.
Both Mao-sheng Yao and Shun-xiang Huang have received high honors and awards from the PLA, which indicates the importance China places on military bioaerosol research and development.
China’s military-civilian bioaerosol research consortium, including Chinese commercial companies, are closely connected to the PLA’s Military Veterinary Institute in Changchun and its affiliated research centers, which we have previously identified as key elements of China’s core secret military biowarfare program and their potential roles in the creation of COVID-19.
The contribution of the PLA’s Military Veterinary Institute to China’s biowarfare program and the U.S. universities affiliated with it and funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense have been described in previous Gateway Pundit articles, here and here.
Yu-Wei Gao of the PLA’s Military Veterinary Institute has no less than nine patents in the last eight years dealing with various aspects of microorganism aerosols.
Together with other colleagues at the PLA’s Military Veterinary Institute, such as Director of the Institute General Xianzhu Xia, Yu-Wei Gao performed animal experiments testing the environmental airborne transmission of influenza viruses capable of infecting humans, as well as genetically-engineering the same viruses to enhance their infectivity.
Clearly, the PLA had the capability of conducting an environmental test of COVID-19. The task ahead will be to gather evidence specific to COVID-19 to corroborate the information provided by the source inside China claiming that such a test did in fact occur.
That investigation and an analysis of Chinese military documents are currently underway.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is retired from an international career in business and medical research with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Donald Trump responded to Joe Biden’s disingenuous Afghanistan speech on Monday.
Biden delivered the worst speech ever, said he stands by his decision to hastily withdraw from Afghanistan and admitted it ‘unfolded more quickly that he anticipated.’
After blaming everyone under the sun (including Trump), Biden quickly took off as reporters shouted questions.
Joe Biden made sure to focus his speech on whether or not the US should be in an endless war in Afghanistan and purposely avoided talking about his disastrous withdrawal.
Trump responded to Biden’s speech: “It’s not that we left Afghanistan. It’s the grossly incompetent way we left!”
According to reports, Joe Biden overruled his own military leaders on the withdrawal.
‘…Five U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that weeks before the Washington-backed Afghan government collapsed, the U.S. military wanted a bigger role in helping to evacuate Afghans at risk because they worked for the United States. The officials believe that a more orderly withdrawal would have been likely.’
“We could have done a lot more to help. The administration waited too long,” a military official said.
Just like Barack Obama said, “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to f*ck things up.”
While the U.S. and the world witness the swift fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban as America moves to withdraw, a recent poll found that a significant majority of likely general election voters disapprove of President Biden’s handling of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
The Trafalgar Group survey, which indicates that it was a partnership with Convention of States Action, found that 59.5 percent strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of America’s military operations in Afghanistan, while 9.8 percent disapprove, 12.4 percent approve, 10.7 percent strongly approve, and 7.5 percent had no opinion.
This means that a combined 69.3 percent either disapprove or strongly disapprove.
The Democratic president scored unsurprisingly low marks among Republicans, with a whopping 80 percent strongly disapproving and an additional 8.8 percent disapproving.
But Biden also performed poorly when it came to members of his party, as 36.9 percent of Democrats strongly disapprove and 11.3 percent disapprove, while just 16.9 percent strongly approve and 22.9 percent approve.
The poll was conducted Aug. 14-15, had 1084 respondents and had a margin of error of 2.98 percent.
“Of the 10.7% of people who said ‘strongly approve,’ 13.3% are GOP, 24.8% are NO PARTY/OTHER, and 61.9% are DEMOCRAT,” Chief pollster of the Trafalgar Group Robert C. Cahaly tweeted. “For perspective only 4% of all Republicans, 10.6% of all No party, and 16.9% of all Democrats answered ‘strongly approve.'”
Because y’all asked:Of the 10.7% of people who said “strongly approve,” 13.3% are GOP, 24.8% are NO PARTY/OTHER,… https://t.co/XF36Y9X6md— Robert C. Cahaly (@RobertCahaly) 1629138508.0
Biden has faced significant criticism over the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“Biden is trying to distract and imply his option was to either send more troops or end a war. That wasn’t the case. It has always been about protecting America. This exit from Afghanistan and the way it was done was pathetic. He gave the terrorists a win and he knows it,” former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley tweeted on Monday.
Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana described it as “disgraceful that we’re leaving in an embarrassing way like this, reminiscent of what happened in Vietnam,” saying that the Biden administration has “botched” the withdrawal and that he hopes the administration is held accountable.
It’s disgraceful that we’re leaving Afghanistan in an embarrassing way like this. Unfortunately, this was botched… https://t.co/esWLBwSFV4— Senator Mike Braun (@SenatorBraun) 1629147421.0
A must-read piece on COVID by a well-informed Christian:
The world loves to hate on those who dare to think differently and not go along with its various agendas and narratives. Unfortunately, there are some who claim to be Christians who can act just the same. This is especially seen in all the fear and hysteria we have concerning COVID.
I have dealt with far too many of these folks already. They seem to be giving the Pharisees a real run for their money as they attack believers who dare to question the current narratives and mantras. I have written often about these guilt-tripping and fear-mongering folks and their attempts to take the high moral and spiritual ground. For example, they insist that Jesus would wear a mask if he were around today. I deal with that here: billmuehlenberg.com/2020/07/17/would-jesus-wear-a-face-mask/
A few weeks ago a very important piece dealing with all this appeared on the must-read website Caldron Pool. Written by a Christian who also happens to be well qualified in this area, his article very nicely summarises why those Christians who are taking a more hesitant approach to what the powers that be are pushing – including Big Pharma and Big Tech – are not nutters, conspiracy theorists, or bad Christians.
Bear in mind that the original version of this piece has numerous live links, so you can see the full documentation being made by this knowledgeable Christian. So please go to Caldron Pool for the real deal. But what follows is the entire piece, reprinted by permission of CP:
We Have Good and Godly Reasons to Decline the Vaccine, So Please Leave Us Alone
“Why won’t they listen?”
“How can they be so irrational?”
“What misinformation have they been reading?”
Perhaps you’ve asked yourself questions like these after encountering or even debating a group of coronavirus “anti-vaxxers” on the internet.
You’ve explained the science. You’ve explained the logic. Still, they will not budge. They remain steadfastly opposed to having the vaccine.
If you’ve had the coronavirus vaccine, or are planning to have one, good for you. This article is not designed to undermine the choice that you have made for yourself.
The purpose of this article is to show you why other human beings will make a different choice than you, even with the same information. With any luck, it will give you some insight into the complexity of human decision-making, and enable you to respect, rather than belittle, the choices that other people make.
“But the vaccines are safe.”
The claim that “the vaccine is safe” is a mistruth. The vaccine is not entirely safe, and it comes across as disingenuous when people continue to state that it is. Within just a few months of the rollout of the AstraZeneca brand of the vaccine,  European countries suspended the vaccine when it emerged that people were suffering a disastrous side effect of blood clots in the brain.
It wasn’t long afterward that Australia announced it would pull the plug on this brand of vaccine.
Alternative vaccine brands have been shown to have similar blood clotting risks, and other serious side effects have since come to light, such as heart inflammation.
Particularly troubling is the fact that many of these serious side effects are skewed towards younger age groups, and even adolescents.
“But the risks are rare.”
No matter how unlikely the risks, they are non-zero. The people who are killed by a side effect of the vaccine are real people – people with parents, spouses, children, friends. It is of little comfort to the loved ones of the deceased to coldly say “but the risks were rare”.
An aloof statistician can talk about your risk being “one in a hundred thousand”. But if you are that one who is now lying dead or seriously injured, the chances that it happened are 100%.
Not everyone is willing to play Russian Roulette, even with a small risk.
“But the risks are lower than […]“
Cue arguments about road accidents.
Sure, life is full of risks. But everyone is entitled to make his or her own decisions concerning risk. I might decide that I am willing to accept a 1 in 50,000 chance of being hurt by driving a car, but not a 1 in 100,000 chance of being hurt by taking a vaccine, after considering the respective gains from engaging in the two activities.
Each person’s evaluation of risk is a computation with dozens of inputs of differing weight, which depend on that person’s individual preferences and circumstances. Because we are not robots, no two people will evaluate the same risk in precisely the same way. It is therefore incredibly patronising for one person to presume that they can dictate to another person how they should think about a particular risk.
There are people who take up BASE jumping or motorcycle racing despite these activities carrying considerable risk. That is their business. There are people who will not travel by air despite it being a very low-risk mode of travel. That is their business. It is not my place to decide what risks another person should and should not take.
“But the virus is more risky than the vaccine.”
This is not the slam-dunk argument that vaccine enthusiasts imagine it to be. It assumes that two things can be equated, when in fact they cannot.
For starters, looking at raw numbers alone, it is not true that the virus is more risky than the vaccine for every age group. It certainly appears to be true for people who are older. But in younger people, the risk posed by the virus diminishes and some of the serious risks posed by the vaccine (such as blood clots) almost certainly increase.
Next, you cannot equate an “act of God” with an act of man. If I were to ask you, “Would you rather die from being gunned down by a mass shooter, or from a sudden heart attack?” most people would choose the latter. As humans, we are averse to being killed or injured “artificially” by other people, and given the choice, we’d rather be killed or injured by an event of nature—especially a health-related event. This explains why many people would rather “take their chances” with the virus than with the vaccine, even knowing that the virus might be riskier on numbers alone.
To the above may be added the issue of time and randomness. To die from a vaccine side effect is to die at the hands of men, at an appointed time (usually within several weeks of receiving the vaccine). Whereas, to die from the virus is to die by the hand of God, at some vague and unknowable time in the future. For many of us, the latter is preferable.
None of this is irrational. It is human. As Mr Spock had to learn in Star Trek, human decisions are more than putting numbers through a set of logic gates.
“But you might die!“
Most of the people I know who have decided not to have the Covid vaccine, or who are leaning that way, are Christian believers. In other words, we are people for whom Christ has removed the dread of death.
That aside, even the most pessimistic numbers put the population-wide risk of death from Covid at about 2%. This risk becomes considerably lower the younger and healthier you are. For many of us, this risk is sufficiently low that it can be quickly outweighed by other considerations.
“Do it for herd immunity.”
Even if I’m happy to take my chances with the virus as an individual, mustn’t I have the vaccine so that we can achieve “herd immunity” and defeat the virus that way?
Nobody knows how many people must be vaccinated in order to achieve “herd immunity”. The WHO admits that the percentage threshold is unknown. Australian “experts” admit that they do not know the answer.
Other key factors remain uncertain: the degree to which the vaccine reduces transmission of the virus, the duration of immunity provided by the vaccine, and the effectiveness of the vaccine against new variants of Covid. With so many unknowns, it is reasonable to conclude that “herd immunity” simply may not be achievable, and its pursuit might be something of a fool’s errand.
Indeed, it seems likely that herd immunity by vaccination is a panacea that is being grasped at by politicians and populaces who are desperate for a return to “normal life”, but one which will forever remain out of reach. Level-headed commentators have acknowledged that one way or another, Covid cannot be defeated and will be with us forever.
“Do it for other people.”
But even if we can’t beat the virus, shouldn’t people get vaccinated to reduce the overall risk of Covid to the whole community?
While this argument comes from a good place, closer inspection shows that it isn’t quite so simple.
Firstly, the “greater good” can never override the fundamental rights of the individual, and the decision to vaccinate is ultimately a decision made by individuals because it is individuals, not populations, who bear the risk of vaccination. It is immoral to demand that an individual take on risk for the benefit of the group—especially when that individual will not be compensated for a realised risk.
Secondly, the age asymmetries inherent in Covid and its vaccines mean that the reorganisation of risk is unjust. If everyone in a country were to have the vaccine, what will actually happen is that risk will shift from the old (who are at greater risk from the virus) to the young (who are at greater risk from many of the serious vaccine side effects, such as brain blood clots).
Given that younger people will lose more years to premature death and disability, shifting risk in this way cannot be easily justified. Indeed, it can be seen as quite obscene. It is nothing at all like the case for vaccinating young children against diseases such as whooping cough and measles, where those at most risk from the diseases are children.
An analogy would be charging the lowest car insurance premiums to drivers who are at highest risk of car accidents (eg. P-platers), and highest premiums to drivers at lowest risk.
Thirdly, the “do it for others” argument is flawed in the same way as much of the political response to Covid the world over: “success” is based on the single metric of Covid case numbers. Just as the “success” of lockdowns is foolishly measured by declining Covid case numbers alone, ignoring a myriad of other measures of human wellbeing, we must not ram through vaccination thinking only of Covid case numbers.
Believe it or not, there are other important things in the world, and many of these things are severely threatened by an aggressive Covid vaccination regime focused exclusively on the numbers:
The basic right of all individuals to freely choose what medication they take.
The cohesion of society, as opposed to its segregation and the stoking of fear and animosity towards minorities who make different medical choices.
Freedom from bureaucratic and technocratic overreach, and the escalation of authoritarian rule that we have experienced throughout 2020-21.
Public trust in doctors, pharmaceutical research, and the health system overall.
Public trust in successful and proven vaccines, such as those against measles and polio.
Limited resources that could be spent on the plethora of other diseases which continue to afflict people, which are instead diverted to fund the purchase and rollout of a handful of costly new vaccines.
Our sense of perspective, as populations are trained to obsess so much over onevirus that they increasingly neglect all the other issues in the world.
Our sense of moral perspective, as we come to idolise safety, longevity and “a return to normality” (where “normality” usually means “luxury”).
Our sense of eternal perspective, as we cling desperately to life, refusing to face our mortality.
Many of us see these valuable things being wrecked by Covid vaccine mania, and we believe that the wrecking of these things will cause profound, cumulative, long-term harms to people—far worse harms than the harms of not vaccinating. And so, for those of us who perceive things this way, saying “no” to the Covid vaccine at the present time is in fact a greater act of good towards the human community than clambering aboard the bandwagon.
I repeat: freed from the tunnel vision of case numbers, our choice to decline the Covid vaccine is motivated by our concern for the good of others, our love for our neighbour.
Like I said at the beginning, my goal here wasn’t to talk you out of having a Covid vaccine if that’s what you really wanted to do. It was to open your eyes to the reasons why many people of faith and goodwill are choosing differently.
You can continue to argue with us, share your anti-anti-vax memes, and demonise us as conspiracy theorists and selfish granny killers. You can cross to the other side of the room when we enter, so that your vaccine-primed immune system won’t be assaulted by the Covid particles cascading off our bodies.
But now that you understand us better, we’d prefer it if you just respect our decision and leave us alone.
 One of the strange phenomena of 2021 is the application of the label “anti vaxxer” to people (including myself) who have gladly accepted dozens of other human vaccines, but are reluctant to have the Covid vaccine. This is naked propaganda, designed to insult and marginalise.
 The AstraZeneca brand also happens to be one which was developed using tissue harvested from an aborted foetus. This is something which many Christians consider morally objectionable.
Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. (2 Samuel 23:5)
This is not so much one promise as an aggregate of promises—a box of pearls. the covenant is the ark which contains all things.
These are the last words of David, but they may be mine today. Here is a sigh: things are not with me and mine as I could wish; there are trials, cares, and sins. These make the pillow hard.
Here is a solace—”He hath made with me an everlasting covenant.” Jehovah has pledged Himself to me, and sealed the compact with the blood of Jesus. I am bound to my God and my God to me.
This brings into prominence a security, since this covenant is everlasting, well ordered, and sure. There is nothing to fear from the lapse of time, the failure of some forgotten point, or the natural uncertainty of things. The covenant is a rocky foundation to build on for life or for death.
David feels satisfaction: he wants no more for salvation or delectation. He is delivered, and he is delighted. The covenant is all a man can desire.
O my soul, turn thou this day to thy Lord Jesus, whom the great Lord has given to be a covenant to the people. Take Him to be thine all in all.
2:23 This verse plays upon the literal meaning of the children’s names, each in a positive way (cf. 1:10; 2:1; Rom. 9:25; 1 Pet. 2:10).
2:23 The promises of restoration come to a climax as Jezreel is redeemed (v. 22; cf. 1:4, 5), Lo-ruhama is shown God’s love (1:6), and Lo-ammi becomes God’s people (1:9).
You are my God. See Rom. 9:23–26 and 1 Pet. 2:9, 10 regarding the fulfillment of these promises.
2:23I will sow her for myself in the land Earlier, the name “Jezreel” telegraphed disaster and destruction (see note on 1:4). Now, the image is positive: God will plant and rebuild Israel.
I will have pity on Lo-ruhama See 1:6 and note; see also v. 1 and note.
to Lo-ammi, “You are my people Reverses the earlier repudiation of the covenant formula. See 1:9 and note; see also v. 1 and note.
2:23. The Lord Himself is pictured as engaging in agricultural endeavors. He will plant Israel in the land (cf. comments on 1:2), where she will grow under His protective care. The nation called Lo-Ruhamah (not … loved; cf. 1:6) and Lo-Ammi (not My people; cf. 1:9) will experience God’s compassion and will be addressed as His people. They will acknowledge that He, not Baal, is their God. This passage is parallel to 1:10–2:1, where the same reversal in the significance of the symbolic names is seen.
Hosea 2:23, along with 1:10, is quoted in Romans 9:25–26 and 1 Peter 2:10. Paul quoted those Hosea passages to say that both Jews and Gentiles will be converted during the Church Age (cf. Rom. 9:24). This does not mean, however, that he equated the Gentiles with Israel and regarded the conversion of Gentiles as a direct fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecy. Paul clearly taught that national Israel would be saved as well (Rom. 11). Rather, Paul extracted from Hosea’s prophecy a principle concerning God’s gracious activity (cf. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963, p. 196).
According to Hosea, God will mercifully bring a previously rejected people into a relationship with Himself. Paul recognized this same pattern in God’s dealings with the Gentiles. In Romans 9:25 Paul, then, was applying Hosea 2:23 to the Gentiles; he was not reinterpreting the verse (cf. comments on Rom. 9:24–26). Likewise Peter (1 Peter 2:10) saw the language of Hosea’s prophecy as applicable to New Testament believers, who by divine mercy have been brought into a relationship with God (cf. 1 Peter 1:3).
Ver. 23. And I will sow her unto Me in the earth.—God’s sowing:—
I. These words refute pantheism. God is not nature, nor is nature God. Pantheism teaches that there is no real and practical distinction between God and the universe. This form of infidelity ignores evil as evil, and all moral responsibility, for it declares that the soul is only a mode of the thought of God.
II. These words declare the Divine personality. Only on belief in a personal God can any sound superstructure of religion be raised.
III. These words show the abiding connection between God and His works. The Bible invariably attributes the operations of nature to the energy of God.
IV. These words show that the universe is the friend of the praying soul. One part of the universe is here represented as related to and acting upon another on behalf of Jezreel. All the forces of nature are arrayed against the disturber of the harmony of God’s kingdom.
V. These words teach that God will really answer prayer. The answers are, “I will sow her unto Me.” “I will have mercy upon her.” “Thou art My people.” The infinite God gives Himself to the soul, and becomes its present and eternal portion. (Christian Age.)
God’s people as seeds:—
1. God’s people are the seed of the earth.
2. Every godly man should so live as, either in life or in death, to be as a seed from whence many should spring.
3. The saints are sown unto Christ, they are seed for Christ, therefore all their fruit must be consecrated to Christ. (Jeremiah Burroughs.)
Hope for the forsaken:—
All the brighter side of the prophetic message is summed up in the most wonderful way in this verse, and there are few verses even in the Bible itself, so crowded with significance. Hosea sums up all that he himself had said, all that he had been teaching for some seven years. It is God whom he represents as speaking these weighty and matterful words:—“And I will sow (an allusion, of course, to the meaning of Jezreel—‘God’s sowing’) her (the impersonated people of Israel) unto Me” (sow, and no longer scatter); and “I will have pity” upon, “not pitied”; and I will say unto “Not My people,” “Thou art My people”; and she shall say to Me, “My God.” Obviously, so soon as we can read the verse aright, we find in it the names of all Hosea’s children, and the whole significance of his prophetic message. On the one hand, we are reminded of the time in which Israel was scattered for their guilt among the heathen, the time in which God refused to pity them, or to acknowledge them as His own; and on the other hand, we are reminded of the better time in which, instead of being God-scattered, unpitied, and not My people, they were called God-sown, pitied, and sons of the living God; when the heavens smiled upon them, and the earth gave them her increase, and all the forces of nature, once so hostile, were at peace with them. (S. Cox, D.D.)
I will say to them who were not My people, Thou art My people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.—Sinners owning a covenant God:—
Read in the light of the context, these words seem to refer to the nation of Israel only. But in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul quotes them as having a more comprehensive reference. He there applies them to the “vessels of mercy,” who are “called” in the Gospel day, “not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” These words foretell the formation of a gracious relation between God and sinners, and the mutual acknowledgment of that relation. On His side He shall own the outcasts as His people. On their side they shall own Him as their God. What is implied in sinners saying to Jehovah, “Thou art my God”?
I. The gracious relation thus acknowledged.
1. And first of all, it is a new covenant relation. Naturally, as is here intimated, we are “not” the people of God. When the covenant which He made with us in Adam, our representative, was broken, we ceased to be His people and He ceased to be our God. We, by wilful apostasy, have cast Him off; and He, in holy and righteous displeasure, has cast us off. Our carnal minds are enmity against Him, and His law has only condemnation and death for us. We are miserable outcasts from our Maker. We are “without God in the world.” But He has made a covenant with His Chosen: and in that new and better covenant He has made provision that the gracious relation so fearfully ruptured shall be more than restored. He has covenanted with His only begotten Son, as the Head of an innumerable multitude of our outcast race, that on condition of His assuming their nature and doing all His will in their redemption He will, in a very special and gracious sense, be a God to Him, and in the same special and gracious sense be a God to them.
2. In this new covenant relation, as willing to be our God in Christ, God offers Himself to us unconditionally and individually in the Gospel. It was such an offer of Himself He made to the Israelites when, from the summit of the flaming mount, He proclaimed, “I am the Lord thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” It was God in the person of Christ, as we learn from Stephen (Acts 7:38), who there announced His willingness to be the God of Abraham’s seed. And to these sinners, deeply infected as they were soon to show, with the idolatry and moral corruption of Egypt, that was a most free offer; and it is expressed in absolute and unconditional terms, clogged with no condition of any sort whatever. It was also an individual offer, made to every Israelite in the camp without exception, so that every soul in all that host, the vilest and most abject was warranted as much as Moses and Aaron, to close with it, and on the ground of it to take Jehovah as his own personal God. Now we are most earnest you should realise this day that God is making to each one of you, through Christ, the same absolutely free and gracious offer to be your God. Only with this great difference, that He is making it not from “the mount that might be touched and that burned with fire, and from blackness, and darkness, and tempest”—not from among that dark obscurity of type, and rigour of ordinance and law tending to bondage and fear, which beset the revelation of covenant mercy and love under the old economy, but in the clear sweet light of the risen Sun of Righteousness, and through the lips of ambassadors whom He has sent to beseech you in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to Him. “Incline your ear, and come unto Me: hear, and your soul shall live; and l will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David” (Isa. 55:3).
3. For, be it remarked further, that while God offers Himself in this relation to all, He actually gives Himself in this relation to those who are made willing by His Spirit to close with the offer by faith. This highest and holiest of covenant unions, like every other covenant union, is formed by mutual consent. Thus the sons of the stranger are said to “join themselves to the Lord,” in the way of “taking hold of His covenant”: in doing which they first take hold of Christ the Surety of the Covenant with the grasp of a living and entire faith when brought near them in the Gospel; and then, in and through Christ, they take hold of the God of the covenant, and enter into all the fulness of His covenanted love and grace (Rom. 3:29, 30). And mark how faith avails to bring the guiltiest and vilest into all the good and blessedness of this endearing relation to Jehovah. Faith, laying hold of Christ, unites us to Him. It makes us so vitally one with Him that we participate in all the boundless merit of His righteousness. And, having Christ’s righteousness as our own, there is no more any legal obstacle to keep us outcasts from God.
4. For observe yet again, that in this relation God gives Himself to believing sinners in all He is and all He has. “He is not ashamed to be called their God” (Heb. 11:16). And why not ashamed to be called their God? It is because He acts toward them with a Divine munificence worthy of Himself, glorifying the exceeding riches of His grace in giving them not this or that kind and measure of good, but in giving them Himself, the Fountain and Centre of all good. Think of the ineffable dignity and privilege of being able to say of Him whom angels count it their supreme happiness to adore, He is my God; mine in all His essential perfections: His wisdom mine, to enlighten and guide me; His power mine, to uphold and protect me; His holiness mine, to raise me to walk in the light as He is in the light; His justice mine, to guard me as one of Christ’s ransomed ones, and to guarantee to me all the inheritance He has purchased with His blood; His truth mine, to fulfil to me every word He has spoken and every expectation and longing His Spirit has wakened within me; His love mine, to delight in me and rejoice over me to do me good; His infinitude mine, to be the measure of the good and the blessedness which I have in Him; and His eternity mine, to be the duration through which it shall all be enjoyed. “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:22, 23). Can you contemplate this, the inheritance of the saints in light, without exclaiming, “Happy is the people whose God is the Lord”?
II. What is implied in the acknowledgment of this relation which our text foretells? It is, as we have hinted, a divinely wrought acknowledgment. Neither reason, nor conscience, nor moral suasion, though that were put forth with the tongue of an angel, will persuade the soul in its natural hatred and fear and distrust of God to make it. It is the response of the newborn nature to the call of the Spirit of God within.
1. It implies, first of all, the believing personal acceptance of the offer which God makes of Himself to sinners indefinitely and individually in the Gospel. Proud unbelief, putting on the deceitful guise of humility, may tell you that it is presumption for such as you to claim Jehovah as your God. You virtually say by that refusal that all His professed love and goodwill toward you is insincere, that His word is not faithful and worthy of all acceptation.
2. This acknowledgment implies, further, the taking of God as our only and all-sufficing portion. Naturally, our carnal hearts will not have God for their portion. They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh. But these earthly things can no more satisfy the nature and cravings of the spiritual essence within us than the husks that the swine did eat could satisfy the prodigal. Deeply and unfeignedly that sinner grieves that, in following lying vanities, he should so long have forsaken his own mercies. But in proportion to the shame and sorrow of his penitence is his satisfaction that in Christ, and God in Him, he has found at last the good, the rest, the home of his heart.
3. Again, this acknowledgment implies the surrender of ourselves to God as our Lawgiver and King and the great End of our being. If we naturally dislike God as our portion, we still more dislike the thought of entire subjection to Him as our King. Many, indeed, would wish to enjoy His favour and His benefits, provided that, free from His holy authority and control, they could get following their carnal inclinations and living as they list. But this will not do. It is an eternal moral impossibility. God must change His nature and reverse all the laws of His moral government ere He can make you happy while you are unwilling to be holy, and ere you can enjoy Him as your portion while you will not know, obey, and submit to His will, in all things, as your Lawgiver and King. And most certainly on these terms you can never enter the bond of His covenant (Heb. 8:10). The true-hearted covenanter is well pleased with God’s covenant in all respects. He delights in the law of the Lord after the inward man (Psa. 119:140). He feels that God has infinite claims upon the love and loyalty of his heart and the perfect obedience of his life. As He who made him, and made him a rational and immortal being responsible to Himself; as He who has made goodness and mercy to follow him through all his sinful days when he would have been honoured in shutting him up in hell; as He who has redeemed his life from destruction with the blood of His Own Son, and hid his life with Christ in Himself forever—he feels that He has claims upon him which the love and never-ceasing service of eternity shall fail to discharge, but which shall rather ever grow in a still accumulating debt.
4. In a word, this acknowledgment implies the explicit and formal devotement of ourselves to God. They “shall say, Thou art my God.” Not merely think it or feel it, but say it. Say it explicitly, formally, solemnly. With the heart he believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth he makes confession unto salvation. Such an avowed devotement of ourselves to God is really made in all spiritual worship. In all true prayer there is an owning of God’s sovereignty and of our dependence which says, “Thou art my God.” In all true praise there is an owning of God’s goodness and of our obligations which says, “Thou art my God.” But the honour of God, the promptings of the new nature, and the necessity of binding our wayward hearts by the firmest and closest of bonds, demand that this avouching of the Lord to be our God should be made in the most explicit and public manner possible to man (Isa. 44:3–6). (Original Secession Magazine.)
23 and I will sow him for myself in the land.
And I will have pity on Not pitied,
and I will say to Not my people, “You are my people”;
and he shall say, “Thou art my God.” ’
The picture that we saw in verse 3 of the land under judgment, parched and crying out for relief, may help us to appreciate this sequence of petitions and answers. Tracing it backwards from verse 22b we see certain links in the chain of survival: the people (‘Jezreel’—see below) looking to their crops, the crops to the soil, the soil to the sky for rain, the sky to the Lord—and ‘in that day’, the Day of the Lord, the answer will be an abundant ‘Yes!’ But in fact the sequence is not traced backwards, but in its proper order beginning with the Lord. And there is more to it than a simple promise of better times to come, for it is an answer also to the labyrinthine world of polytheism, with its one god for corn, one for rain, and so on, which had stolen Israel’s heart and had muddled all her thinking. Instead of that tangle of competing powers we see the one Lord from whom all blessings flow, and glimpse the orderly variety of His creation, through which His gifts are mediated not at random but within His perfect will, and not by means of magic but within a created system that makes sense and therefore can be studied and put to use. As H. W. Wolff has pointed out, ‘the background of these verses indicates a genuine scientific representation of relationships within nature.… In the book of Hosea, it is instructive to note how Israel’s liberation from the nature myths of the cult of Baal permitted the free study of nature to flourish (cf. Gen. 1).’
It is worth adding that, however elementary and obvious this model of the natural world may seem, it is elementary in the best sense, for it brings us down to a basic presupposition from which almost every advance in practical knowledge stems: that the world is a single, close-knit composition, intelligible in principle. And it does not make the blunder of exalting that system by denying its fount and origin. So we are not left with a mechanistic world on the one hand, nor with a God who keeps us guessing on the other, but with a world we can explore and a God we can trust and serve responsibly within it.
The climax of this set of promises dispels the last shadow of the oracles of chapter 1. Already this has been anticipated in 1:10–2:1; now it is reiterated, and one new thing stands out at once. While the names of Hosea’s second and third children (‘Not pitied’ and ‘Not my people’) are again set free from their negatives, as in 2:1, the name of the eldest, Jezreel, is now reinterpreted. Instead of being a reminder of Jehu and his massacres (see on 1:4), the name will now take its colour from the meaning of its two Hebrew components. The Hebrew yizr‘’el (Jezreel) means ‘God will sow’, or ‘May God sow’; and God now turns this into a promise that His land, long ruined and deserted, will be sown with inhabitants again. He adds, in passing, that this is ‘for myself’—for God, like any farmer who takes a pride in what he cultivates, hates to see His beloved land lying useless and His people scattered. His good name is bound up with all this, and for His own sake He will see the situation changed. Ezekiel 36:22ff. takes up the theme, and shows that while this approach may not be flattering it is highly reassuring, for it bases everything on God’s honour, nothing on our dubious merits.
There is one other new thing. Where the earlier promise showed God saying affectionate things to Israel, such as ‘Sons of the living God’ and ‘My people’ (1:10; 2:1), the last words of our chapter bring back a human reply to Him: ‘(Thou art) my God.’ Like an exchange of marriage vows this mutual affirmation, ‘you are mine’, was the very heart of the covenant, and still is.
This brings us to the point where we are no longer overhearing a conversation between God and ancient Israel, but finding ourselves involved directly. Twice in the New Testament this ‘welcome home’ to those who were ‘Not pitied’ and ‘Not my people’ is quoted from our two chapters (1:10–2:1; 2:23) as God’s word now to ‘us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles’. Paul cites it to demonstrate the unfettered grace of God towards the undeserving (Rom. 9:23–26); and Peter, to show that in Christ we are not only reconciled but incorporated into ‘a chosen race, … God’s own people’ (1 Pet. 2:9f.). If this chapter therefore leaves us only contemplating God’s way with ten tribes whose kingdom disappeared 2,700 years ago, we have parted company with the New Testament as well as the Old. These things constitute ‘the grace’, as 1 Peter 1:10 puts it, ‘that was to be yours’.
The Prophet here takes the occasion to speak of the increase of the people. He had promised a fruitful and large increase of corn, and wine, and oil; but for what end would this be, except the land had numerous inhabitants? It was hence needful to make this addition. Besides, the Prophet had said before, ‘Though ye be immense in number, yet a remnant only shall be preserved.’ He now sets God’s new favour in opposition to his vengeance, and says, that God will again sow the people.
From this sentence we learn that the allusion in the word, Jezreel, has not been improperly noticed by some, that is, that they, who had been before a degenerate people and not true Israelites, shall then be the seed of God: yet the words admit of two senses; for זרע, saro, applies to the earth as well as to seed. The Hebrews say, ‘The earth is sown,’ and also, ‘The wheat is sown,’ or any other grain. If then the Prophet compares the people to the earth, the sense will be, I will sow the people as I do the earth; that is, I will make them fruitful as the earth when it is productive. It must then be thus rendered, ‘I will sow her for me as the earth,’ that is, as though she were my earth. Or it may be rendered thus, I will sow her for myself in the earth, and for this end, that the earth, which was for a time waste and desolate, might have many inhabitants, as we know was the case. But the relative pronoun in the feminine gender ought not to embarrass us, for the Prophet ever speaks as of a woman: the people, we know, have been as yet described to us under the person of a woman.
And he afterwards adds, לא־רוחמה, La-ruchame. He speaks here either of La-ruchama, an adulterous daughter, or an adulterous woman, whom a husband takes to himself. As to the matter itself, it is easy to learn what the Prophet means, which is, that God would diffuse an offspring far and wide, when the people had been brought not only to a small number, but almost to nothing: for how little short of entire ruin was the desolation of the people when scattered into banishment? They were then, as it has been stated, like a body torn asunder: the land in the meantime enjoyed its Sabbaths; God had disburdened it of its inhabitants.
We then understand the meaning of the Prophet to be, that God would multiply the people, that the small remnant would increase to a great and almost innumerable offspring. I will then sow her in the earth, that is, throughout the whole land; and I will have mercy on Lo-ruchama, that is, I will in mercy embrace her, who had not obtained mercy; and I will say to the no-people, Ye are now my people. We see that the Prophet insists on this,—That the people would not only seek the outward advantages of the present life, but would make a beginning at the very fountain, by regaining the favour of God, and knowing him as their propitious Father: for this is the meaning of the Prophet, of which something more will be said to-morrow.
Grant, Almighty God, that as we are in this life subject to so many miseries, and in the meantime grow insensible in our sins,—O grant that we may learn to search ourselves and consider our sins, that we may be really humbled before thee, and ascribe to ourselves the blame of all our evils, that we may be thus led to a genuine feeling of repentance, and so strive to be reconciled to thee in Christ, that we may wholly depend on thy paternal love, and thus ever aspire to the fulness of eternal felicity, through thy goodness and that immeasurable kindness, which thou testifiest is ready and offered to all those, who with a sincere heart worship thee, call upon thee, and flee to thee, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
23. This is that which in fact lies at the bottom of all our mercies, Jehovah’s rich covenant in his threefold person of character, of redemption. The Lord’s condescending to take Israel into covenant-relation with himself, in Christ, is the foundation, and the sum, and substance of the whole scheme of grace. Observe, it is God which saith, I will sow her unto me in the earth. And it is God which first acknowledgeth Israel for his people, before that Israel acknowledgeth the Lord for his God. It all begins in God, and ends in God. Jesus is both the Alpha and the Omega, the Author and Finisher of our salvation. And it is most blessed, indeed, when the soul is brought to see, and as cheerfully to delight and acknowledge, that the whole of redemption from beginning to end is of Jehovah, rich, free, and sovereign grace. Then the redeemed can and do in heart and soul join the hymn of heaven, when addressing God and the Lamb, thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood. Rev. 5:9.
2:23 And I will sow her for me in the earth,
and I will show compassion to Not-Shown-Compassion,
and I will say to Not-My-People, ‘You ˻are˼ my people’,
and he will say, ‘˻You are˼ my God’.
I will sow her is a wordplay on Jezreel, ‘God will sow’ (cf. 1:4). No longer is the reference negative; it now reflects the number and material prosperity of the people (cf. 1:11). Her refers to the nation in terms of the betrothed of the Lord, a concept which finds its consummation in the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22–33). In the earth is again ambiguous, quite possibly ‘in the land’ is intended, but ‘earth’ in 2:21 is the counterpart of ‘heaven’, and in this context there is no specific mention of a return from exile which ‘the land’ would require. This is probably an application of the Gentilic promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:3). The sowing of the people of God points to a massive increase in their numbers which was associated with the ingathering of the Gentiles.
The reflection on the reversal of the ominous significance of Jezreel leads into the affirmation that the other two curse names are also revoked. The Lord will show compassion on Not-Shown-Compassion (cf. 1:6–7; 2:1) and will also reinstate Not-My-People (cf. 1:8–9; 2:1). This final act of deliverance evokes a response from the one who was formerly Not-My-People. He will say, ‘You are my God’. The masculine is now used because Lo-Ammi was a son. Here the mutual pledges of a renewed relationship replace the former words of alienation and reproof. The two parties are again reaffirming the terms of the bond uniting them in a mutual, perpetual and solemn commitment.
 Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J. (Eds.). (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., Ho 2:23). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
“Lord, you alone are my portion and my cup; you make my lot secure … surely I have a delightful inheritance.” Psalm 16:5-6
I get anxious, really anxious, when I try to make sure I know how to act. I wonder, “What will I say if someone asks me this question?” I plan, “If this person does this, then I need to do this.” I go over dialogue in my mind. I think about the exact tone in my voice I need to use to get my point across. Just like a favorite scene from a movie or TV show, I imagine how smart I will sound.
Please don’t judge me.
Though this internal rehearsal seems like a harmless personality quirk, I’ve learned that for me it is a much bigger issue. In my journey to know God and follow Him, rehearsing the future can be a symptom of pride and distrust. It enforces the lie that I control the future, not God. Not to mention what rehearsing the past can do for my emotional health. Going over past conversations in my head, hoping for a do-over is counter-productive, at the least.
God promises throughout His Word that He has got our future under control and has amazing plans for us. He knows our past and can use it for great things. Our focus needs to be in the present. Here. Right now. This moment.
Today, I can enjoy His presence anxiety-free and experience His blessings, while leaving the future and the past to Him.
God, I ask that Your Spirit in me would guide my thoughts. When I start to rehearse, help me take each thought captive and make it obedient to You by enjoying this present moment and leaving everything else to You.
I learned something very important. It’s one of those commonsense realities that when you hear it, it seems so obvious you wonder why you haven’t thought about it before. In fact, when you hear it, you think, “Big deal; I know that.” But the more reflection you engage in, you realize that you may know it, but you are not acting on it. Indeed, you are acting on something quite the opposite. What I am speaking of is simply this: the past is static; the future is dynamic.
Think about it. Everything in the past is frozen. Our memories are freeze-frames of history. We can’t change what is over and done. Oh, we might be able to re-write it for future generations, but that is just someone’s view of the past. It doesn’t change what actually happened, only how we think about it. To keep going back to the past, or to let the past define your future, is to limit yourself to a huge degree – to stay stuck in one static interpretation of your life when the future is full of possibilities and opportunities you don’t even know exist at this time. This goes both ways, by the way, if your past was awful and something you want to forget, or if it was great and something you want to go back to. Neither is possible, but both can short-circuit our thinking. My particular version of this is to have a past I want to return to.
I am often guilty of thinking I’ve lived my life backwards – as if I peaked into the past and everything has been downhill since then. That was when the Holy Spirit worked. That was when creativity flowed. That was when the gospel went forth in power. Oh really? So there’s no Holy Spirit now … no creativity … no gospel? What a debilitating way to think! What a non-faith approach to life!
And yet, we are constantly doing this, are we not – constantly comparing “now” to “then” and always calling “then” better or worse, and limiting our futures as a result? The extent to which I believe this is the extent to which I go into the future atrophied by the past.
Ah, but the past is so convenient. It always cooperates with how I want to think about it. It never challenges me – never wars with my interpretation – never disagrees with me. And it’s always there. I can complain or reminisce to my heart’s content, but in the process, I will miss whatever God has for me now, and in the future.
The future is unknown, challenging, exciting, dynamic, uncharted, and very scary. I can’t control it the way I can control the past. It won’t cooperate with me unless I continue to let the past rule and freeze myself in time.
Don’t do it. Release your hold on your life and throw the door open on the dynamic of His will for your future. I can guarantee that either way you are thinking about your past, what He has for you and I yet to discover will be better. Guaranteed.
“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived – the things God has prepared for those who love him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
That tells me one thing about my future. If I have seen it, or heard about it, or can conceive of it, it’s not what God has in mind for me.
Letting the Gospel Lion Out Isaiah 55:11; Acts 19:20; Romans 15:19–20; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 4:19–20; 15:1–2
A great many learned men are defending the gospel; no doubt it is a very proper and right thing to do. Yet I always notice that, when there are most books of that kind, it is because the gospel itself is not being preached. Suppose a number of persons were to take it into their heads that they had to defend a lion, a full-grown king of beasts! There he is in the cage, and here come all the soldiers of the army to fight for him. Well, I should suggest to them, if they would not object, and feel that it was humbling to them, that they should kindly stand back, and open the door, and let the lion out! I believe that would be the best way of defending him, for he would take care of himself; and the best “apology” for the gospel is to let the gospel out.
Ritzema, E. (Ed.). (2012). 300 Quotations for Preachers. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
The Cross Awaits You Everywhere Matthew 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10
The cross … is always ready; it awaits you everywhere. No matter where you may go, you cannot escape it, for wherever you go you take yourself with you and shall always find yourself. Turn where you will—above, below, without, or within—you will find a cross in everything, and everywhere you must have patience if you would have peace within and merit an eternal crown.
THOMAS À KEMPIS*
Ritzema, E., & Brant, R. (Eds.). (2013). 300 quotations for preachers from the Medieval church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Twenty years after we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, Joe Biden has shamefully handed it all back.
The situation in Afghanistan is dire, the Taliban is in control, and the country’s future is fraught with uncertainty. But this much is certain: The buck doesn’t stop with Joe Biden. No siree.
“Do I bear responsibility? Zero responsibility.” That’s what The Leader of the Free World said last year upon being asked whether he would bear any responsibility for an outcome in Afghanistan in which the Taliban “ends up back in control and women end up losing their rights.”
Biden continued: “The responsibility I have is to protect America’s national self-interest and not put our women and men in harm’s way to try to solve every single problem in the world by use of force. That’s my responsibility as president. And that’s what I’ll do as president.”
Well, Joe, that was then. Today, the Taliban is back in control, and they did it on your watch and on your timeline. You may still believe you bear no responsibility, but the first draft of history is already being written. And it isn’t kind. For example, the lefties on the USA Today editorial board are calling it “Biden’s Afghanistan horror,” and the pathetic dead-enders at CNN are going with “Biden’s botched Afghanistan exit.”
No less a leftist and Islamist apologist than CNN’s Christiane Amanpour called it “a shameful day.”
Others are likewise brutally honest. “It is a stain on our nation’s integrity and honor that even just a few months ago, we were not meeting our obligation to the men and women, our Afghan allies who served alongside us,” said Jake Wood, a former U.S. Marine and Afghan war veteran. “We owe them the special immigrant visas. We owe them safety, every bit as much as we owe safety to our embassy workers in Kabul.”
The government our nation stood up and supported for nearly 20 years in Afghanistan collapsed in a single day Sunday. The country’s embattled president fled, the U.S. military scrambled to evacuate personnel, and Taliban fighters rolled into Kabul uncontested and eager to announce a new Islamist state.
All in a day’s work during the Biden administration.
As first-term Texas Congressman and former White House physician Ronny Jackson said, “Remember when Obama’s Secretary of Defense [Robert Gates] said Biden has been ‘wrong on nearly every foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades’? It turns out he was spot on.”
Speaking of Barack Obama, whose feckless foreign policy served as the blueprint for Biden’s failures in Afghanistan and all around the globe, it’s worth recalling what he reportedly said to an unnamed fellow Democrat about his then-vice president’s presidential ambitions: “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up.”
Just where is Joe Biden anyway? We know that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki is on vacation, so it’s possible that the Biden White House has had its tongue cut out. Aside from a mealy mouthed statement on Saturday, the American president has been shockingly, outrageously, indefensibly invisible during all this. The Wall Street Journal editorial board summed it up this way: “As the Taliban closed in on Kabul, Mr. Biden sent a confirmation of U.S. abandonment that absolved himself of responsibility, deflected blame to his predecessor, and more or less invited the Taliban to take over the country.”
Mission accomplished, we guess.
“With that statement of capitulation,” the Journal continues, “the Afghan military’s last resistance collapsed. Taliban fighters captured Kabul, and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country while the U.S. frantically tried to evacuate Americans. The jihadists the U.S. toppled 20 years ago for sheltering Osama bin Laden will now fly their flag over the U.S. Embassy building on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t seem to care. Here’s what she said over the weekend:
The President is to be commended for the clarity of purpose of his statement on Afghanistan and his action. The Taliban must know the world is watching its actions. We are concerned about reports regarding the Taliban’s brutal treatment of all Afghans, especially women and girls. The U.S., the international community and the Afghan government must do everything we can to protect women and girls from inhumane treatment by the Taliban. As we strive to assist them, we must recognize that their voices are important and respect their culture.
Whose culture would that be, Nancy? The Taliban’s?
As an aside: Does anyone else get the sense that a President Donald Trump would’ve been heard from by now? That a U.S. military under his command would’ve nine-line-briefed some air ordnance toward Taliban targets if he were still commander-in-chief? In fact, Trump has been heard from: “Tragic mess in Afghanistan,” he said in a statement on Friday, adding: “a completely open and broken border, crime at record levels, oil prices through the roof, inflation rising, and taken advantage of by the entire world.”
While this is no laughing matter, we can think of at least two people who are sharing a few yuks at the expense of American prestige: Vladimir Putin and Jinping Xi. After all, the Taliban has sent them and every other would-be despot a crystal-clear message: You can act with impunity when the American president is Joe Biden.
A judge ordered the Biden administration to reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy.
A major court decision serves to stifle the Biden administration’s open-borders policy. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has ruled that Joe Biden failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when he issued his order rescinding Donald Trump’s “Migration Protection Protocols” (MPP), better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. That was one of Trump’s most effective actions stemming the flow of illegal immigration, and it was one of the first things Biden undid.
Judge Kacsmaryk directed the Biden administration to “enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under Section 1255 without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention resources.”
Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy should never have been ignored, but it has been Biden’s plan from Day One to establish his radical leftist agenda irrespective of constitutional Rule of Law across the board.
The invasion across our southern border is one perilous example. To that end, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was recorded in a private meeting with Border Patrol agents in Texas saying what he and the Biden/Harris regime have known all along:
A couple of days ago I was down in Mexico, and I said, “Look, you know, if, if our borders are the first line of defense, we’re going to lose and this is unsustainable. We can’t continue like this. Our people in the field can’t continue and our system isn’t built for it.” … The extent of the challenge should not be understated, but nor should our ability to meet it.
Of course, Mayorkas knows full well that the real “challenge” has been opening and keeping the border wide open under the guise of “acting to secure the border in a humanitarian way.” The Biden administration has willfully and intentionally invited more than one million illegal immigrants across our southern border in his first six months — at least that’s how many were caught and mostly released. This invasion is the direct result of ignoring Trump’s border security policies. This is an impeachable offense, and Mayorkas has been complicit in this political charade from the start.
Finally, a memo to Mayorkas: Some 40% of migrants released in one Texas border town tested positive for COVID-19. With all the fearmongering from the Biden administration over the spreading Delta variant, one would think that at least this might cause the regime to consider closing up the border, if only for presenting some semblance of consistency.
Then again, considering the Biden administration’s real agenda regarding illegal immigration, working to ensure that COVID is continuously being spread throughout the U.S. via infected illegals helps to further the COVID fear and power-grabbing.
The special counsel has reportedly submitted some findings to a grand jury.
Are we about to get answers — or better yet, accountability — for how the Left weaponized the FBI to undercut Donald Trump? Forgive our pessimism, but despite some news regarding Special Prosecutor John Durham’s investigation, we’d warn you not to hold your breath.
The Leftmedia served as a key co-conspirator, colluding with Democrats to air every whisper of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia to win the 2016 election. Nearly every last bit of it was fake news. Democrats soon turned their Trump Derangement Syndrome into not one but two impeachments.
Still, there are important developments now and then.
“Even for those of us who followed and wrote on the Russia investigation for five years, much has been revealed in the last year,” writes law professor Jonathan Turley. “It was disclosed in October, for instance, that President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan, on July 28, 2016, on intelligence suggesting that Hillary Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as ‘a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.’ The date was significant because the Russia investigation was initiated July 31, 2016, just three days later.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t issue any findings before last year’s election. Now, his investigation has been going longer than that of Robert Mueller.
Yet news broke Friday that Durham has submitted some of his findings to a grand jury for possible indictments. He’s already gotten the FBI’s Kevin Clinesmith for falsifying records. And the rumor is that more low-level FBI agents and perhaps a person or two outside of government may be next.
Say, what did Joe Biden know and when did he know it?
Veteran journalist Mollie Hemingway hopes “this is the beginning of the possibility that people will be held accountable for the conspiracy to target the Trump campaign through an illegal campaign to spy on Trump, on the Trump campaign and the Trump administration, to criminally leak about them, to doctor evidence.”
Either way, it’s no wonder the media is downplaying the story. “The media are kind of downplaying it and acting like it’s not a big deal,” Hemingway says. “And that’s understandable because they were implicated in this as well. In fact, they were some of the worst offenders in perpetuating this collusion hoax on the American people. The last thing they want is for anyone to be held accountable. They’re trying to make sure this story goes away as quickly as possible.”
We suspect the same will be true of Attorney General Merrick Garland. It’s now his decision whether to publicize Durham’s findings, or whether to allow him to continue beyond September, when Durham’s budget allocation runs out. Garland is an Obama man who’s likely still sore over being denied a Supreme Court appointment. Anyone think he’ll play fair?
According to Biden and company, the bridge between Trump supporters and terrorists is the fallacious accusation that Trump supporters are all “right-wing extremists” and “white supremacists.” Thus, the full power of the state must be focused on rooting them out. Of course, Biden and company know that by making such comparisons, they are baiting and begging some fringe nuts to commit more violence so they can stick the label on all conservatives.
According to DHS: “These extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year.”
Right. And it’s ironic that the new “terror alert” was announcement by NBC, because “NBC” is actually the initialism for the most serious terrorist threats: “Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical.”
Next week, I expect Biden’s DHS chief clown Alejandro Mayorkas to add “supporters of the First and Second Amendment.”
This ruse in the name of stopping terrorism is akin to the Biden/Mayorkas ruse claiming they want to stop the illegal immigrant invasion across our southern border, when in fact they have all but directly declared an open border — resulting in more than a million illegals entering the country (and many more not counted) over the last six months. Meanwhile, the Demo Party of hate and division ignores the haters in its own ranks.
And political observer Todd Starnes quipped, “If I’m reading the DHS security briefing correctly, there’s a good chance you could spend Christmas in Gitmo if you defy the government’s orders on mask mandates, vaccination papers or mandatory shutdowns.”
The “soft bigotry of low expectations” has accelerated among leftist indoctrinators.
There is little doubt that Oregon Governor Kate Brown believes she has done something “noble” for the public school students in her state. In reality, she’s behaving like a boilerplate progressive bigot.
On July 14, Brown signedSenate Bill 744. It states that “a student may not be required to show proficiency in Essential Learning Skills as a condition of receiving a high school diploma” through the next three school years. In short, a student can “graduate” from an Oregon high school without having demonstrated that he or she can read, write, or do math at a high school level.
As abhorrent as that is, it gets worse. Charles Boyle, the governor’s deputy communications director, stated in an email that suspending the need to be proficient in basic skills will benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.”
“Leaders from those communities have advocated time and again for equitable graduation standards, along with expanded learning opportunities and supports,” Boyle added.
As always, progressives like to hide behind vocabulary to obscure their ideological bankruptcy. Thus, we have “equitable graduation standards,” which is an oxymoron of the highest order. If one has graduation standards, then students who do the necessary work will meet them, and students who don’t won’t, in which case they won’t receive a diploma until they do.
Equity is the contemptible idea that all students will attain the same outcome — in this case, a diploma — wholly irrespective of whether or not they have actually earned it. That is a not a “standard” in any sense of the term, except one: Since the stated effort of this lunacy is to benefit minority students, Oregon schools have officially sanctioned bigotry as the “standard” by which students will be measured.
While George W. Bush aptly termed such machinations the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” that phrase doesn’t go nearly far enough. This is a despicable combination of paternalism, whereby white progressives pat themselves on the back for their high-mindedness, and social justice, whereby minority leaders embrace “systemic racism” as a shield to hide the sellout of their fellow minorities. Yet while these people are suffused with a sense of their moral superiority, one critical thing gets completely obscured:
They are more than willing to mortgage the future of hundreds of young Americans who will discover what kind of life really awaits people whose education has been marginalized to further a political agenda.
And not just for this year, but also for those students who “graduate” from the classes of 2022, 2023, and 2024. Thus, we can be virtually assured that educational “equity” will produce students who are equally ignorant. Such is inevitable when one caters to the lowest common denominator that the abandonment of genuine standards epitomizes.
Where is the outrage? Perhaps many Oregonians remain unaware of this, as Brown’s decision was not made public until recently, due to the fact that her office didn’t hold a signing ceremony or even issue a press release. Moreover, the bill Brown signed wasn’t entered into the legislative database until July 29, a move that represents a departure from the usual procedure of entering such information into the public database the same day a bill is signed.
Oregon’s current graduation standards have been in place since 2009, but they were suspended during the pandemic, and the aforementioned three-year extension is about allowing leaders to reexamine them. Recommendations for new ones are due to be presented to the legislature and State Board of Education by September 2022.
Yet since those same officials have stated that they would not impose new graduation requirements on students who have already begun high school, the new requirements would not take effect until the class of 2027 at the very earliest. Thus, three years of educational armageddon will apparently become five.
This nation is at a crossroads, one where we can no longer afford to embrace the ideological and intellectual bankruptcy of an “education” system dominated by the same progressives who have dominated it for years. It has become painfully obvious that their agenda is politicization first and foremost, and genuine education second — but only insofar as it doesn’t undermine that politicization. The most despicable aspect of that politicization?
Two generations of Americans have been taught to hold their own nation in contempt.
Once again: Republicans at the state level have the opportunity of a lifetime. Legislatures controlled by them should initiate measures whereby any time a teachers union contract expires, it will not be renewed, and teachers will subsequently be hired on a case-by-case, meritocratic basis. If local districts wish to resist, legislators should make it clear that any and all expenses related to the unions they wish to preserve — including salaries and benefits — will be borne by those districts themselves.
Until recently, most Americans paid little attention to the ongoing nexus between teachers unions, administrators, and school boards, all of whom have amply demonstrated their hostility and indifference to thousands of parents who want their children to be taught how to think, not what to think. Hostility and indifference whereby they have publicly announced they will defy state laws and teach what they want.
The campaign contribution tracking website OpenSecrets reveals why this is possible, noting that teachers unions have given Democrats “at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins.”
Thus, we have what amounts to a de facto monopoly. Teachers unions fund Democrat politicians sympathetic to their agenda, paving the way for the appointment of Democrat-controlled school district personnel and school board members. Until this alliance is forcibly challenged, the nation will continue to “graduate” millions of weak-thinking Americans, many of whom will ultimately turn to government to underwrite their well-being.
Government dependency is the lifeblood of the American Left, which has now moved seamlessly into an alliance with Big Tech, which has also demonstrated its commitment to censor that which fails to accrue to leftist sensibilities. Sensibilities that currently aim to turn America from a constitutional republic to a Marxist/socialist construct — with the Left permanently in charge.
The wholesale abandonment of American principles cannot happen without widespread acquiescence, and if the Republican Party cannot embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity to seize control of the most important agenda in the nation, and initiate what amounts to a counter-“fundamental transformation” — back to decency, sensibility, and genuine standards — the GOP can no longer be considered a viable opposition party.
Bottom line: Those who support the “graduation” of thousands of illiterate, innumerate young Americans are racist frauds, and they have held sway long enough. The ongoing devolution of American society is irrefutable evidence of their “handiwork.”
An Atlanta school allegedly segregated classrooms, but a brave black parent stands up.
Parent Kila Posey recently requested of her child’s principal, Sharyn Briscoe, that her second-grader be put with a specific teacher that Posey knew would be a good fit. Her husband works as the school psychologist at Mary Lin Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia. Requesting a specific teacher is one of the privileges that comes with his job. However, the response the couple received was quite disturbing.
Posey was told, “That’s not one of the black classes.”
It was then explained to Posey that her child along with the other black second-graders were going to be divided between two black-only classes. The rest of the second grade students, the white ones, were placed with the other six teachers, including the one that Posey wanted her child to be with this year. Naturally, Posey reached out to Briscoe in an attempt to get to the bottom of this. The principal confirmed that this setup was indeed the case.
“First, it was just disbelief that I was having this conversation in 2020 with a person that looks just like me — a black woman,” Posey said. “It’s segregating classrooms. You cannot segregate classrooms. You can’t do it.”
After learning all the details of what this school year would look like for her child, Posey and her husband filed a complaint. According to the Poseys’ written statement, Briscoe retaliated by trying to get Mr. Posey, the school psychologist, transferred to another school in the district and fire the company that Mrs. Posey worked under as an after-school care provider. The vindictive principal also succeeded in getting said company fired from another school in the district whose principal is friends with Briscoe.
This story is still under investigation, but if it’s true, Posey is absolutely correct in seeking to address this wrong. Back in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on a very well-known case. Perhaps (ahem) you’ve heard of it: Brown v. Board of Education. In this ruling, the justices declared that segregation of children by race in public schools is unconstitutional. Also, a decade later, there was a federal law passed called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which declared that segregation by religion, race, or national origin is illegal.
Since we have these fairly well-known laws and rulings as precedent, why would an Atlanta school principal think that segregating the classes based on race was ever going to pass muster? One can only conclude that this is anti-white racism in action as dictated under the tenets of Critical Race Theory. By separating the “oppressed” (the black students) from the “oppressors” (the white students), Briscoe probably thought she was doing a good deed by her charges. In reality, she is depriving these students of the opportunity to form friendships, foster understanding, and become better citizens of their community. It teaches these children that the color of their skin is what defines them instead of the content of their character.
The dehumanizing attacks against our children need to be addressed at every opportunity. We should be very thankful for brave parents like Kila Posey and her husband who are willing to stand up for what’s right and protect all of our children, regardless of color.
Propagandists aim to erode the growing popularity of Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott.
As our readers know, the moniker “Leftmedia” is used to illuminate the fact that “news” outlets act primarily not to provide accurate and unbiased coverage of the news but to push a leftist agenda. It would be hyperbolic to suggest that Leftmedia outlets don’t present any news at all; it’s just usually carefully selected news infused with a major leftist twist.
Pushing a narrative-based agenda over and against simply reporting the news more often than not results in misleading and downright fake news. And reporting on COVID has taken this problem to even higher levels of what can only be described as leftist propaganda.
Take the Leftmedia’s recent attacks on the Republican governors of Florida (Ron DeSantis) and Texas (Greg Abbott). Both governors have steadfastly opposed the Biden administration’s unscientific fearmongering regarding COVID; both governors have fought to protect the Liberty of their states’ residents by guarding against mask and vaccination mandates; and both governors have sought to keep the citizens of their states fully informed regarding the latest genuine data known about the novel coronavirus, trusting their constituents to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
The result of DeSantis and Abbott’s commitment to protect and uphold their citizens’ constitutional rights has been for them to be made targets of the Biden administration and its Leftmedia cohorts.
Regarding Governor Abbott, the Texas Tribune was forced to issue a massive correction to a story in which it erroneously claimed that the state’s number of children hospitalized for COVID over the prior week had surpassed 5,800. This data was quickly spread across social media as supportive evidence that Abbott’s banning of mask mandates for school children was literally causing a massive spread of COVID infections in children. Some leftist talkingheads claimed that Abbott was leading a “death cult.”
However, Abbott’s actions had done nothing to increase the number of hospitalized children. In fact, the 5,800 figure was the total number of Texas children hospitalized with COVID since the beginning of the pandemic. In other words, the Tribune had taken 18 months of hospitalization numbers and crunched them all into a one-week time frame (accidentally, of course), all in order to seed the false claim that Abbott was endangering children by banning school mask mandates.
Again, it’s not just Abbott who has been falsely smeared with the Leftmedia’s “death cult” talking point. Governor DeSantis has received the same treatment. CNN “reporter” Jim Acosta suggested that the COVID Delta variant should be called the “DeSantis variant.” Associated Press “journalist” Jonathan Lemire puts DeSantis on the top of his “governors making people sick” list. Other leftists joined the foray. The head of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, falsely claimed that DeSantis is leading a “disinformation campaign” that is hurting people. Her bogus claim was gleefully “reported” as news.
What this all demonstrates is that the Leftmedia is only concerned with promoting leftist politics, full stop. When it comes to spreading misinformation, disinformation, or downright fake news, none of it is out of bounds as far as the Leftmedia is concerned.
Two authors warn against the encroachment by social media upon our first liberty.
There’s a reason why the first words of our Constitution’s First Amendment are as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That reason? Our Founders thought religious freedom to be our most important freedom — even more important than the freedom of speech.
In a recent Wall Street Journal commentary, authors Salvatore J. Cordileone and Jim Daly argue that, as they put it, “The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is being dismantled, and with it the profound contributions that religion makes to American unity and self-government.”
And how is this fundamentally American guarantee being attacked? By the anti-God, anti-Christian censors of social media. They write:
Today’s sexual politics function as a new kind of fundamentalism, one that presents a deep problem to a diverse and democratic society. Instead of encouraging the dialogue of democratic process, the fundamentalists seek to impose their own rigid certitude unilaterally. On matters ranging from foster care and education to gender ideology and the family, this new fundamentalism is displacing the moral convictions that once grounded U.S. culture. The result isn’t a more compassionate and liberal society; it’s a more punitive one.
Social media enables the new fundamentalism, enforced by the mysterious rules of Big Tech’s quasimonopoly. On public sidewalks, the First Amendment still theoretically protects free speech. In the new public square of the internet, power displaces liberty and conscience.
Cordileone, who heads the Catholic Archdoicese of San Francisco, and Daly, who leads Focus on the Family, note that religious liberty allows us to fight government overreach by instilling in us the virtues necessary for that fight. And while they don’t say it in so many words, they might as well: Without that fundamental freedom, the American experiment is toast. “There is a reason,” they write, “the Pledge of Allegiance places our national loyalty ‘under God.’ Without that protection, the ambitions of power tend to corrupt conscience and deform human rights.”
This struggle between religiosity and secularism, between love of God and lack of God, isn’t anything new. In 1952’s Witness, one of the great books of the 20th (or any) century, author and ardent ex-communist Whittaker Chambers posited that “communism poses the most revolutionary question in history: ‘God or man?’”
Today, nearly 70 years later, that question continues to haunt us, and the fight for freedom of religious expression is its main battlefield. If we reject God on social media platforms or anywhere else, then we do away with our primary bulwark against the awful force that, as Chambers puts it, “has been inching its ice cap over the nation” for the past century.
Google rewrote news algorithm to target Trump, says whistleblower (NewsBusters)
Ted Cruz derails Democrats’ late-night push to pass federal election takeover (Daily Wire)
Biden admin targets Ron DeSantis ban on mask mandates, offers cash to Florida school districts defying governor (Fox News) | White House discussing totalitarian vaccine mandate for interstate travel (PJ Media)
“Court’s hands are tied”: Federal judge denies landlords’ request to block CDC national eviction ban (CNBC)
D’oh! CEO of “fact-checking” website Snopes suspended for lying (The Federalist)
USDA to permanently boost food stamp benefits by 25% (AP)
Consumer sentiment sinks to height of COVID levels (Fox Business)
Annals of the “Social Justice” Caliphate
Not satire: The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine just one-upped the term “birthing person” with “human milk-feeding individual” (Not the Bee)
Subway franchisees are fed up with Megan Rapinoe’s TV ads (Fox Business)
Scotland to allow children as young as four to change gender without parental consent or knowledge (PM)
Re: The Left: “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” —Thomas Sowell
Observations I: “Contrarianism has run amok in the United States. It is a byproduct of moving into postmodernism. Instead of focusing on what is true, we now all focus on our personal truths with no regard to actual truth. If we believe it is true, then by God in heaven it is true! Combine that with our increasing divisions as a society, and many people’s truth is now based on being exactly opposite their opposing tribe. Everyone prides themselves on their individual thought when really their thoughts are not individual but based on tribal consent.” —Erick Erickson
Observations II: “America is no longer a true community based on shared ideals and principles. It’s now a group of segregated societies. There is still racial segregation (something the left bizarrely and sadly even encourages these days), but class separation is what most divides Americans. Elite Americans live in private, high-end communities, dine at private clubs and fly in private planes. The economic divide has always existed, but the scale and extent of it has reached new highs. America is no longer a cohesive society.” —Neil Patel
Observations III: “During the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, about 75 percent of Americans trusted Washington to do the right thing most of the time. That number began to sink during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in the ‘60s and never recovered. By the time Barack Obama was in the White House, in 2009, public trust was down to the teens or low 20s, where it has remained ever since. With so many Americans mistrusting their government, should it really surprise anyone that many balk at answering nosy census questions? In a society plagued by declining social capital, a fall-off in the census response rate is all too predictable. Besides, it isn’t only the census that people have been turning their backs on. Just ask anyone in the polling industry, which has been convulsed in recent years by the plunge in Americans’ willingness to answer survey questions.” —Jeff Jacoby
No big deal… “To merely keep pace with the IPCC recommendations on carbon emissions, Americans, who use around 20 million barrels of petroleum every day, would be compelled to induce a pandemic-level shutdown of the economy every year for 30 years.” —David Harsanyi
Indeed: “Children need germs. They cannot permanently wear masks. The longer we keep them in masks, the more we delay a cold and flu season that will just get more dangerous with time.” —Congressman Dan Crenshaw
Political futures: “No ID to vote, but proof of a vaccine to travel isn’t really the talking point Democrats should be running on headed into 2022.” —Erick Erickson
Straight from the horse’s mouth: “We are encountering an unprecedented number of migrants in between the ports of entry at our southern border.” —Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
A trip down memory lane: “The Taliban is not the … North Vietnamese army. They’re not … remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a[n] embassy.” —President Joe Biden, July 8, 2021
And last… “Biden’s military policies have helped the Taliban. His energy policies have helped Russia. His border policies have helped people come here illegally. His domestic policies pay people not to work. What has he done, other than not tweet, that hasn’t backfired?” —Ari Fleischer
How the Taliban conquest of Afghanistan could be a Messianic omen According to Jewish literature, the ten lost tribes of Israel were hidden beyond the mythical Sambatyon River in order to hide them and separate them from mankind. According to Jewish legend, the river has the unique quality of not flowing on the Sabbath. They will remain hidden until the final battle for Mount Zion, at which time they will come to help Israel in the battle. This is hinted at in the book of Isaiah:
EU on brink of collapse as even ex-French PM admitted ‘Things could fall apart in months’ Talk of the EU splitting up has grown since the UK left the Union last year, with several member states lined up as potential nations to emulate Brexit. This year post-Brexit Britain’s swift COVID-19 vaccine rollout has been compared to the sluggish distribution of jabs in the EU. The pandemic has further exposed Brussels’ bureaucracy, as well as the fault lines that exist between some member states.
Arctic Sea Ice News and analysis The rate of Arctic sea ice loss was somewhat slow through much of July, lowering prospects for a new record low minimum extent in September. The month as a whole was marked by widespread low pressure over most of the Arctic Ocean, which was much more extensive than recorded for June.
COVID: 90% of patients treated with new Israeli drug discharged in 5 days Some 93% of 90 coronavirus serious patients treated in several Greek hospitals with a new drug developed by a team at Tel Aviv’s Sourasky Medical Center as part of the Phase II trial of the treatment were discharged in five days or fewer. “The main goal of this study was to verify that the drug is safe,” Prof. Nadir Arber said. “To this day we have not registered any significant side effect in any patient from both groups.”
Palestinians’ burn effigy of Star of David with Swastika inside In the ‘Palestinian’ village of Beyta in Samaria, Arabs held a ceremony burning a lifesize Star of David with a Nazi Swastika inside of it. The ceremony took place next to the recently-established Jewish village of Evyatar. In the video, local Arabs can be seen holding torches while surrounding the effigy and shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!”
Head of education for Arabs in Israel assassinated Israeli Education Minister Yifat Shasha-Biton’s Arab affairs adviser was gunned down in his car on Sunday outside his home in the Galilee village of Rameh. Sahar Ismail, 50, a member of the Druze community, also served as an adviser to New Hope leader Gideon Sa’ar, currently Israel’s justice minister.
What Hezbollah learned this month The likelihood that Hezbollah will start a major war against Israel increased significantly in the wake of its Aug. 6 missile attack. Hezbollah attacked Israel with 20 missiles because the outcome of Hamas’s offensive against the Jewish state in May convinced Iran’s foreign legion in Lebanon that it would only gain from aggression.
Iranian opposition group behind cyberattack on Iranian railroads The group in question is known as Indra, named after the god of war in Hindu mythology. “We have seen many cyberattacks connected with what are believed to be professional intelligence or military units,” Itay Cohen, a senior researcher at Check Point, told The New York Times. “But here, it seems to be something else entirely.”
Assessment: Arson caused massive forest fire in Jerusalem hills Fire fighters are still battling a massive blaze in a forest near the town of Beit Meir, not far from Jerusalem. Fire fighters from across the country as well as the Home Front Command have been deployed in an effort to bring it under control. The blaze is visible from far and wide, including from many parts of Jerusalem. Several main traffic arteries including Highway One were closed during the afternoon
Eviction Moratorium: A Postmortem On Private Property The Founding Fathers did not include a universal pandemic exception in the Constitution… If eviction moratoriums are deemed a lawful intervention, why shouldn’t the seizing of private property be used to quell future “crises”?
Top 10 BIGGEST LIES about Covid-19 Covid is a group of symptoms, not a disease, according to one of the world’s leading virus experts, Dr. Judy Mikovitz. When you test “positive” for Covid, you’re really just testing positive for common colds, flu viruses and pathogens from previous vaccines. When most people run a high fever, their body is actually fighting off bacteria from the Covid masks they wear all day and the pathogens that were injected with the Covid inoculations.
Former defense secretary Leon Panetta said U.S. credibility is “in question” after Afghanistan fell to the Taliban amid the United States’ troop withdrawal.The post Obama Defense Secretary: US Credibility ‘In Question’ After Defeat in Afghanistan appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
The US has increased its military presence in Afghanistan to 6,000 troops to evacuate American citizens. Meanwhile, a large crowd of people gathered outside the White House in Washington, DC to voice their concerns over the fall of the Afghan government and the troop withdrawal.