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. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “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
Just how many things that we warned about have now come to pass?
We told you so. We told you so. We told you so. There, I said it. Three times. I know it is not good form to rub it in when you tried to warn folks for decades, only to get rejected, vilified, mocked, laughed at, and hated on, although just about everything you said actually happened. But that has been our lot for a long time now.
Like the old watchmen on the wall, we sounded the alarm, we sought to wake people up, and we said great evil is descending upon us if we do not stand up and act now. But we were derided and treated as fools. That has been the case with all true prophetic voices. Just this morning I read this in my daily reading of Scripture:
“And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers. Then this people will rise and whore after the foreign gods among them in the land that they are entering, and they will forsake me and break my covenant that I have made with them’” (Deuteronomy 31:16).
God warned Moses ahead of time just how the people would act. Other prophets were also told by God ahead of time that the people would reject their message, but they were to proclaim it anyway:
Isaiah (Is. 6:9-10) He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
Jeremiah (Jer. 7:27-28) “When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer. 28 Therefore say to them, ‘This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips.
Ezekiel (Ez. 3:4-9) He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them. You are not being sent to a people of obscure speech and strange language, but to the people of Israel—not to many peoples of obscure speech and strange language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely if I had sent you to them, they would have listened to you. But the people of Israel are not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for all the Israelites are hardened and obstinate.
We have warned long and hard for so many years now that the war on faith, family and freedom would only intensify and get much worse; that caving in to the demands of the radical activists would not placate them but only encourage them to demand more; and that our ability to live as a free people and to worship freely will be lost if we do not stand up and fight for it. But we were ignored and told to shut up.
Examples
There are so many things happening on a daily basis – all things that we had long warned about – that I can only very briefly list a few of the most recent cases. Let me start overseas. Voice for Justice in the UK just sent this email out, beginning with these words:
How long before Christians are excluded from the public arena? The short answer is, never, if we can help it! Yet every day there seems news of fresh outrage and growing attempts to silence any who dare voice Christian belief. For example:
Kate Forbes, Scottish candidate to lead the SNP. Pilloried in the press for saying her faith doesn’t support same sex marriage or sex outside wedlock.
Revd Bernard Randall, sacked from his chaplaincy job at Trent College, Long Eaton and reported to the anti-extremism watchdog – for telling students in a sermon that it was okay for them to disagree with LGBTQ+ teaching.
Dr Aaron Edwards, lecturer at Cliff College, Bristol, accused of homophobia and reprimanded, after expressing the view that homosexuality is a sin which has invaded the Church, and that such teaching is a ‘Gospel issue’.
At every level and in all walks of life, Christians are being reviled and intimidated into silence by secularists pushing an ideological agenda that demands total dominance. At the same time, school children are being relentlessly indoctrinated into accepting life-style choices that expose them to enormous and sometimes life-changing harm.
That is something we now find on a daily basis, yet some of us warned till we were blue in the face that caving in to the radical sexual revolutionaries would only make things worse for all of us – with public penalties and punishments included. But so few listened to what we had to say.
Here in Australia the never-ending war on Christianity continues unabated, with the latest outrage being a diabolical attack on Jesus Christ by a homosexual activist on a mainstream TV show. As one news report says:
There are growing calls for Channel 10’s The Project to be cancelled after a guest on Tuesday’s show made an off-colour joke about Jesus Christ. Comedian Reuben Kaye was speaking about the hate he receives from members of the public – and Christians in particular – for being gay and wearing drag when he joked: ‘I love Jesus. I love any man who can get nailed for three days straight and come back for more!’ His line left host – Waleed Aly – who is a Sunni Muslim – speechless, but co-anchor Sarah Harris and the rest of the cast laughed along with the joke….
The controversial quip sparked a furious reaction online with some viewers saying the gag went ‘too far’ and others even calling for the show to be taken off the air. One person wrote: ‘I’m very disappointed and will be switching off this show forever. The number one rule in comedy if you want to have a long career is to keep religion and politics out of it.’
Another said: ‘This show needs to be cancelled, period.’ A third commented: ‘Lowest of lows… #boycotttheproject.’ One viewer asked: ‘Since when is disrespecting other religious views cool?’ However, Kaye doubled down on his Jesus joke, posting a screenshot on Instagram of a news article about the controversy, and writing: ‘This may be my best work…’ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11805799/Calls-Project-axed-comedians-lewd-joke-Jesus.html
Alexandra Marshall of the Australian Spectator rightly said this about it: “If this joke had been made about Mohammad, not only would the program have been taken off air for hate speech, the comedian and every person on the panel would be in hiding for fear of violent retribution. Christians are tolerant, Islam is not. Guess which one the @Woke prefer?”
And the Australian satire site Damascus Dropbear put it this way:
SYDNEY, NSW – The TV current affairs show, The Project, has admitted to conducting a social experiment surrounding how offensive they can be towards Christians and still be forgiven. The confession comes after they aired a prime-time session with gay ‘comedian’ Reuben Kaye, who went on to make sex jokes surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus – with the panellists laughing hysterically.
Project host, Waleed Aly, outlined the motivation behind the jokes. “We have been fascinated over the years with how much rubbish we can say about Christian beliefs and still get away with it,” Mr Aly explained. “So this time we thought we would really go for it – say the worse thing we could possibly say about their Messiah right in the middle of dinnertime”
“It was hilarious. The next night we said sorry of course, though it was hard not to laugh while doing it. The crazy part is they forgave us again! They’ve gotta crack eventually.” Anglican Minister, David Oldman, spoke to Damascus Dropbear about the situation. “I have actually been commissioned by the bishop to carefully monitor The Project,” Rev Oldman said. “Jesus said we should forgive up to seventy-seven times, this little blaspheme has just got them up to sixty.”
Lastly there is the past 3 years of Covid hysteria and tyrannical government responses. We warned constantly about how dodgy and questionable the “science” was, how bad statist overreactions were, and how deplorable the media’s lies about it had been. A few days ago Marty Makary, MD, MPH (a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) had a very important piece published in the US, which has now even been run by some Australian media outlets.
It is called, “10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked”. It is a MUST read. I can only offer the beginning and end of it here:
In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:
Much of the time, they were wrong. To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time. That’s understandable. You go with the data you have. No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives in the face of new evidence. When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.
At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR. In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession. Here are 10 ways they misled Americans:
Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity…
Misinformation #3: School closures reduce COVID transmission…
Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than from the infection…
What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong. Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer should have been “we’re not sure.” Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.
Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong. At minimum, the CDC should come clean and the FDA should add a warning label to COVID vaccines, clearly stating what is now known. A mea culpa by those who led us astray would be a first step to rebuilding trust. https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/
Please read his entire article. It is a terrific summary of just how wrong our “experts,” elites and politicians got things, and a notable case of “We told you so.”
I and others will keep on sounding the alarm and keep on acting as a watchman on the wall. And we know full well the main reaction we get will be that of ridicule, contempt, scorn and hatred. But we must continue to warn regardless. It is our solemn duty to sound the alarm.
100 Percent Fed Up reports- As the January 6 Witch Hunt Committee continues to distort the truth and mislead the American public about what really happened on January 6, 2021, more and more evidence is surfacing to disprove their lies and, hopefully, to exonerate hundreds of innocent men and women who’ve been persecuted and prosecuted with help from the Deep State and dirty Democrats.
US House Jan 6 Witch Hunt Committee
By now, most Americans have figured out, or are starting to figure out, that the whole “insurrection” of the Capitol on January 6 was nothing more than a setup by Democrats and the Deep State, who were hell-bent on preventing Republican lawmakers from presenting evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election on national television.
If President Trump could be blamed for the unarmed “insurrection” of the Capitol, he would likely not be able to run for President again in 2024. But those of us who continue to dig for the truth are not about to allow hundreds of our fellow American citizens to be treated like criminals without doing everything we can do to expose the truth about how protesters were very likely set up on that day.
By the time Trump supporters arrived at the Capitol from the Ellipse where Trump had spoken, the barricades around the Capitol (that would indicate the Capitol grounds were off limits) had already been ripped down by undisclosed individuals (undercover US intelligence agents?). As a result, most people had no idea they were breaking the law when they walked up to the Capitol building to join what they believed was a lawful protest.
The older woman and her husband were told there would be speakers at the Capitol starting at 1 PM. But, instead of seeing the promised speaker at the Capitol building, Capitol Police shot her with a rubber bullet and doused her face with pepper spray.
Watch:
A bombshell video that was obtained by the DOJ and shared by Joe Dan Gorman, the creator, and host of the popular “Intellectual Froglegs” videos, reveals how police officers not only allowed protesters inside the Capitol but actually held the doors open for them to enter into the interior of the Capitol.
The video begins by explaining how the US Department of Justice obtained the surveillance video and that the subjects are being recorded in the doors and hallway of the “Upper West Terrace doors of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Capitol Police can be seen casually walking in the opposite direction of protesters who are freely entering the Upper West Terrace doors into the hallway that leads to a set of double doors where more police officers are standing and watching or, in some cases, holding the doors open for the protesters to enter inside.
A series of screenshots from the video below shows over 250 protesters entering the Capitol with no resistance from Capitol Police officers. Notice how the protesters are all very orderly and respectful of the police officers, who don’t appear to be the least bit concerned about their safety from the “dangerous insurrectionists.”
At 2:33 pm on Jan. 6, Capitol Police allowed five unidentified men (federal agents) to exit through the double doors inside the Capitol to the hallway of the Upper West Terrace doors to the outside. The men walk in an orderly fashion through the hallway and exit.
A gentleman wearing a red hat just happens to be outside the door when the last of the five unidentified men leave the Capitol building. He catches the door and holds it open for more protesters to enter.
Inside the Capitol, at least one police officer is standing by the double doors watching and helping to prop open the door for more protesters to enter.
Is this how Capitol Police are trained to behave when they are “under attack” by a “dangerous mob?”
An estimated 250 protesters entered through the Upper West Terrace doors that day. Many of them have been charged with felony obstruction for entering a building undiscouraged, even though Capitol Police officers can clearly be seen assisting them and even encouraging them to come inside.
Capitol Police officers walked in the opposite direction of the incoming protesters through the hallway to the outside exit. At no time in the video do they attempt to stop the flow of protesters from entering the Capitol.
The Capitol Police officer walks back into the Capitol with his back toward the large crowd of protesters. He doesn’t appear to have any concerns about turning his back on the “dangerous mob.”
The crowd in the hallway begins to swell. Capitol Police do not attempt to prevent them from entering.
A woman can clearly be seen videotaping the police as they allow large crowds of protesters to enter the Capitol. Still, the police officers curiously do not attempt to stop the protesters.
In this clip, a police officer appears to be making an attempt to stop the crowd, but when another police officer whispers in his ear, he stops and then backs up to allow the protesters to enter.
Finally, at 2:47 pm, police officers dressed in yellow standing outside the exit doors kick the door, stop away from the door that’s been propped open and reach inside to secure the door before closing the exit doors off to protesters.
Was there a quota for the number of protesters they needed to allow inside the Capitol before police officers shut and locked the doors?
Watch the incredible video here:
A special thank you to Intellectual Froglegs creator Joe Dan Gorman for sharing this incredible video.
The man on the left is Kristian Andersen, a British scientist who emailed Fauci 1/31/20, saying the virus looks lab-made. The man on the right is Kristian Andersen, the guy who Fauci called on 2/1/20 and ordered to publicly say it wasn’t lab-made, which he did. Fauci then gave… https://t.co/UDzIhNb37kpic.twitter.com/LY7ttS23kJ
Recently released e-mails show that Dr. Anthony Fauci knew key facts about the origins of COVID-19 in January 2020. But at that critical time, when the country was first learning about the virus, Dr. Fauci chose not to share the facts with Americans. Instead, he acted to conceal them.
On January 31, 2020, at 10:32 p.m., Dr. Fauci received an email from British researcher, Dr. Kristian Andersen. Dr. Andersen has received millions of dollars in grants from the NIH. In the email, he warned Dr. Fauci:
One has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered . . . Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Ferguson] and myself all find the genome inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Two hours later, at 12:29 a.m. on February 1, Dr. Fauci emailed his long-time deputy, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss. In the email, Dr. Fauci attached a paper written by Dr. Ralph Baric and Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi – the so-called “bat woman” from Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The paper highlighted taxpayer-funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses conducted by the WIV. Dr. Fauci told Dr. Auchincloss:
It is essential that we speak this [morning]. Keep your cell phone on . . . read this paper . . . you will have tasks today that must be done. Urgency. Intensity.
Two hours later, at 2:48 a.m., Dr. Fauci sent another email, to Dr. Robert Kadlec. Dr. Kadlec was the Trump-appointed Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services. Attached to this email was an article that downplayed the lab leak and advocated for an evolutionary origin to COVID-19. Dr. Fauci simply wrote:
Bob: This came out today. Gives a balanced view.
No urgency. No intensity.
Why was Dr. Fauci so concerned when emailing his deputy but so calm when emailing his boss? Why didn’t he send Dr. Kadlec the Baric-Shi paper? The paper that supported the original message from Dr. Andersen that COVID-19 looked engineered, was inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and linked American tax dollars to gain of function research at the WIV.
Later that morning, at 11:47 a.m., Dr. Auchincloss replied to Dr. Fauci:
The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain-of-function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what this means since [we are] sure that no coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. [We] will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.
Dr. Auchincloss’ email confirms Dr. Fauci’s worst fear. American tax dollars funded gain of function research at the WIV and that research didn’t go through proper oversight (the P3 framework).
Dr. Fauci already knew there was a lethal virus on the loose in Wuhan, China. In just 13 hours, between 10:32 p.m. January 31, 2020, and 11:47 a.m. February 1, 2020, Dr. Fauci learned three additional facts.
What did he do next?
He organized a conference call for the evening of February 1, 2020. On the call were 11 virologists from around the world, including Dr. Andersen who sent Dr. Fauci the email less than 24 hours earlier. Almost all the participants on the call had previously been awarded American taxpayer-funded grants by Dr. Fauci.
Who was not on the call?
Dr. Kadlec, Dr. Fauci’s superior at HHS.
Dr. Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Brett Giroir, Assistant Secretary for Health.
Or Dr. Birx, the soon-to-be COVID-19 Response Coordinator.
In fact, there was not a single U.S. government official on the call, except for Dr. Fauci.
What happened on the call? We don’t know. All of the emails discussing the call are redacted.
However, we do know what happened four days later. Dr. Andersen, the virologist who sent the original 10:32 p.m. email on January 31, went public with this statement: “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered . . . and that is demonstrably false.”
In four days, Dr. Andersen flipped 180 degrees.
The only intervening event appears to be the conference call with Dr. Fauci.
In addition, over the next few weeks, Dr. Andersen and three others on the conference call penned an article in Nature Medicine. The article included the definitive statement, that “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct . . . “
And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. (Exodus 23:28)
What the hornets were we need not consider. They were God’s own army which He sent before His people to sting their enemies and render Israel’s conquest easy. Our God by His own chosen means will fight for His people and gall their foes before they come into the actual battle. Often He confounds the adversaries of truth by methods in which reformers themselves have no hand. The air is full of mysterious influences which harass Israel’s foes. We read in the Apocalypse that “the earth helped the woman.”
Let us never fear. The stars in their courses fight against the enemies of our souls. Oftentimes when we march to the conflict we find no host to contend with. “The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.” God’s hornets can do more than our weapons. We could never dream of the victory being won by such means as Jehovah will use. We must obey our marching orders and go forth to the conquest of the nations for Jesus, and we shall find that the Lord has gone before us and prepared the way; so that in the end we will joyfully confess, “His own right hand and his holy arm, have gotten him the victory.”
Plenty of evangelical leaders have taught that Christianity isn’t much different from other religions . . . and that you really don’t have to change how you think and how you live when you become a Christian it’s even OK to hold unbiblical views about salvation as long as you’re sincere.
2:16 John warned against what the body desires, what the eyes itch to see, and what people work hard to acquire. These are not from the Father but from the world.[1]
2:16 desires … pride. Those who love this world (v. 15) are short-sighted; they want to be satisfied and honored now (Luke 6:24–26). In contrast, those who love the Father have a long-term perspective and wait for God’s reward (Luke 6:20–23).[2]
2:16flesh A dichotomy to the Holy Spirit’s work (see note on John 3:6). John is not suggesting that being human is a negative thing; rather, he is referring to worldly values that are unacceptable to God.
For John, a war wages between people’s evil desires (and the desires of evil spiritual powers) and God’s desires (see note on John 1:5). Paul identifies the same conflict and uses the same Greek word to do so (compare note on Gal 5:19–21).
of the eyes A reference to lustful behavior.
arrogance of material possessions Wealth used for the purposes of personal gain demonstrates a selfish view of self-worth. Instead, wealth should be used for the care for others (1 John 3:16–18; compare Rev 3:17).[3]
2:16 In warning against all that is in the world, John does not demonize the whole created order (cf. Gen. 1:31). Rather, he gives examples (desires of the flesh, etc.) of what the believer should guard against. Human desires are part of God’s creation and therefore not inherently evil, but they become twisted when not directed by and toward God.[4]
2:16 all that is in the world. Cf. Jas 4:4. While the world’s philosophies and ideologies and much that it offers may appear attractive and appealing, that is deception. Its true and pervasive nature is evil, harmful, ruinous, and satanic. Its deadly theories are raised up against the knowledge of God and hold the souls of men captive (2Co 10:3–5). lust. John uses the term negatively here for a strong desire for evil things. flesh. The term refers to the sin nature of man; the rebellious self dominated by sin and in opposition to God (Ro 7:15–25; 8:2–8; Gal 5:19–21). Satan uses the evil world system to incite the flesh. eyes. Satan uses the eyes as a strategic avenue to incite wrong desires (Jos 7:20, 21; 2Sa 11:2; Mt 5:27–29). Satan’s temptation of Eve involved being attracted to something beautiful in appearance, but the result was spiritual death (Ge 3:6 “a delight to the eyes”). pride of life. The phrase has the idea of arrogance over one’s circumstances, which produced haughtiness or exaggeration, parading what one possessed to impress other people (Jas 4:16). not from the Father. The world is the enemy of the Christian because it is in rebellion and opposition against God and controlled by Satan (5:19; Eph 2:2; 2Co 4:4; 10:3–5). The 3 openings presented, if allowing access to sin, result in tragedy. Not only must the Christian reject the world for what it is but also for what it does.[5]
2:16the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: The world is characterized by these three lusts, which have been interpreted as corresponding to the three different ways Eve was tempted in the garden (Gen. 3:6), or the three different temptations Jesus experienced (Luke 4:1–12). However, the correspondences are not close enough to make it certain that John was alluding to either of these. Instead, John was probably making a short list of the different ways believers could be lured away from loving God. The lust of the flesh refers to desires for sinful sensual pleasure. The lust of the eyes refers to covetousness or materialism. The pride of life refers to being proud about one’s position in this world.[6]
2:16.All that is in the world can be summarized under three categories the apostle names here. Taken together they summarize the totality of the allurements of this godless system.
The first is the lust of the flesh, that is, every illicit physical activity that appeals to people’s sinful hearts. These are those things the flesh craves, such as illicit sexual pleasure or addictive drugs.
The second element of the world is the lust of the eyes, that is, whatever is visually appealing but not proper to desire or obtain. The object before the eyes might be a person or thing, but the desire to have it is what is called elsewhere as covetousness.
The pride of life means “the vain display of earthly life.” The Greek word rendered “pride” is alazoneia (arrogance, pretentiousness, or boasting about self, possessions, or accomplishments).
The Revisionists probably maintained that one could freely participate in the activities of the world. They may have argued that since God is its Maker, one was simply using what the Creator had made. But although the physical world is “of God” who created it, the world as a moral system is not. All that is in the world bears the taint of wickedness (cf. 1:5).[7]
2:16. The reason love for the world is incompatible with love for God is that everything in the world … comes not from the Father but from the world. The world thus conceived is a system of values and goals from which God is excluded. In describing “everything in the world,” John specified its contents under three well-known phrases that effectively highlight the world’s false outlook. Men of the world live for the cravings of sinful man. “Cravings” translates epithymia, which is used twice in this verse and once in the next verse. The NIV translates it differently each time: “cravings,” “lust,” “desires.” In the New Testament the word usually, though not always, connotes desires that are sinful. The expression “sinful man” translates the Greek sarx (lit., “flesh”). The phrase refers particularly to illicit bodily appetites. The expression the lust (epithymia) of his eyes points to man’s covetous and acquisitive nature. The boasting of what he has and does paraphrases the Greek hē alazoneia tou biou (lit., “the pretension of human life”), which signifies a proud and ostentatious way of life. (Alazoneia is used only here in the NT.) Christians ought to have nothing to do with such worldly perspectives as these.[8]
16The cravings of sinful man (lit. ‘the lust of the flesh’) points to the gratification of our fleshly desires. The lust of his eyes is the strong desire for what is seen, for the outward form of things; it is the lust after the superficial. The boasting of what he has and does (lit. ‘the boastfulness of life’) is the empty haughtiness of the worldly-minded. (With these three things compare the three things that led Eve to disobey God; Gn. 3:6.) None of these has its origin in God (not from the Father). They are all from the world, that world that is but a passing show on its way to ruin. Everything points to totality: evil is found throughout the world. 17 By contrast, whoever does the will of God lives for ever. Obedience is an important part of eternal life.[9]
2:16. The reason we are not to love the world is that the world’s values are in opposition to God. The cravings of sinful man are the sinful interests and desires that draw us away from God. The lust of [the] eyes refers to sinful desires that corrupt us. The eye is often used as a figure of speech to refer to sinful passions (Matt. 5:28).
When Eve looked at the forbidden fruit, it was “pleasing to the eye.” David’s sin with Bathsheba started when he looked on Bathsheba taking a bath (2 Sam. 11:2). It might be translated, “the desires that originate in what we see.” The boasting of what he has and does refers to the arrogance and pride that can overtake us as we try to “get ahead of the Joneses” and when we rely on ourselves rather than God for our material possessions and worldly positions.
These values are foolish for two reasons. First, they do not come from the Father. Therefore, they interfere with our fellowship with the Father. Second, we are all going to die, and what we are living for will come to nothing. The well-known saying of slain missionary Jim Elliot seems appropriate here: “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose.”
We might paraphrase this whole passage: “Do not embrace the world’s ways or goods. When you do, it squeezes out your love for God. When you live for ‘getting your own way,’ and for ‘getting everything you want,’ and for ‘looking good compared to others,’ you are not living for God but for the world. This is foolish because it suffocates your relationship with God, and in the end, it will all go up in smoke anyway.”[10]
2:16 “the lust of the flesh” This refers to fallen mankind’s self-seeking attitude (cf. Gal. 5:16–21; Eph. 2:3; 1 Pet. 2:11).
“However, alazoneia, found also in James 4:16, has a more active meaning then mere pride: It denotes arrogance, boastfulness, the conviction of self-sufficiency” (p. 408).
The term life is bios which refers to earthly, physical, temporal life on this planet (what mankind shares with the plants and animals, cf. 3:17).
16. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
The main thought of verse 16 is this: “everything in the world … comes not from the Father but from the world.” In his epistle, James provides a parallel idea. On the origin of wisdom, James writes, “Such ‘wisdom’ does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil” (James 3:15). That which has its origin in the world comes not from God but from the devil.
What are the so-called things of the world? John spells them out in three categories: cravings of sinful man, lust of man’s eyes, and boasting of what a person has or does. Of course, this list of tendencies is comprehensive in scope, but not necessarily exhaustive.
Before we discuss these categories, we make the following observations. The first two categories (cravings and lust) are sinful desires; the last (boasting) is sinful behavior. The first two are internal and hidden sins; the last is an external and revealed sin. The first two pertain, to the individual person, the last to the person who is surrounded by people.
a. Cravings
Literally the Greek text has “the desire of the flesh.” The New International Version, however, translates the text as “the cravings of sinful man.” The word desire is used collectively and represents cravings that include sexual desire and covetousness. These cravings are evil because they cause man to disobey God’s explicit command, “You shall not covet” (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Moreover, these cravings originate in man’s nature and give birth to sin (James 1:15). Paul writes a similar account of this sinful nature (Gal. 5:16–17), which he says “is contrary to the Spirit.”
b. Lust
John describes this desire as “the lust of [the] eyes.” The eyes are the channels to man’s soul. When man is enticed by lust, his eyes serve as instruments that cause him to transgress and sin. John reflects the sentiments of Jesus (recorded in the Sermon on the Mount), who categorized lustful looking as sin: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).
c. Boasting
John lists the third tendency in words that cannot be translated easily. Translators provide a number of equally valid versions. Here are some representatives:
“The pride of life” (KJV, NKJV, RSV)
“The boastful pride of life” (NASB)
“All the glamour of its life” (NEB)
“The life of empty show” (NAB)
“Pride in possessions” (JB)
“The boasting of what [man] has and does” (NIV)
The reason for these numerous variations lies in two Greek words: “boast” and “life.” The first word means the boasting of a braggart or impostor (compare James 4:16). This boasting may even approach the point of arrogant violence. The second denotes life with respect to actions and possessions. The person who brags about his deeds and goods expresses “lust for advantage and status.”43
The three vices (cravings, lust, and boasting) originate not in the Father but in the world, that is, from the devil. John writes “the Father” to indicate, first, the link with the preceding context (1:2, 3; 2:1, 13, 15) and, second, a reminder that the readers are God’s adopted children. They are sons and daughters of their heavenly Father and do not belong to the world. In a different setting, Jesus voices the same thought. He tells his adversaries, “He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God” (John 8:47).[12]
Ver. 16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.The three elements of a worldly life: love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power:—What then is the meaning of the phrase “desire of the flesh?” It is the desire which we naturally have to gratify our lower impulses, that animal nature which we share with the brutes, but which in man ought to be under the control of the superior faculty of reason. If we name this desire from its object, rather than from its origin or source, we might call it loosely “the desire of pleasure uncontrolled by a sense of duty.” It is more difficult to ascertain the exact force of the “desire of the eyes.” If taken literally, it would simply stand for a particular form of the desire of the flesh, a more refined and human form of sensual pleasure, the desire of seeing beautiful objects; but I am inclined to think that, so far as this is sensual, it is included under the former head, and that it is more in accordance with Hebrew ideas and with the facts of life to suppose that we have here a quite distinct class of desires, the desires of the intellect. But how, it may be asked, can the desire of knowledge be condemned as characteristic of the world. Knowledge is not dependent on society, like pleasure, and moreover the desire of knowledge is especially commended in the Bible. How then can it be to the discredit of the world, or make its influence more injurious, if it is accompanied by the desire of knowledge? The answer is that neither pleasure nor knowledge is in itself condemned in the Bible. The pleasure which is condemned in the phrase “lust of the flesh,” is, as we have seen, selfish and predominantly sensual, unchecked by higher thoughts and feelings. And so by the “desire of the eyes” is meant primarily not the desire for truth as such, but the desire for a knowledge of the world, knowledge as contrasted not with ignorance and stupidity, but with simplicity, ingenuousness and innocence. How many owe their fall to an impatience of restraint and a curiosity which is attracted to evil rather than to good! How few remember that knowledge no more than pleasure can claim our absolute allegiance! We now come to the third of these worldly lusts, as they are styled in the Epistle to Titus, the “pride,” or as the Revised Version has it, the “vainglory” of life, the desire to make a show, the desire of honour and distinction, which is as naturally characteristic of the active principle within us, as the desire of pleasure is of the passive or sensitive principle. Supposing this to be a generally correct account of St. John’s analysis of the spirit of the world, it is evident that it corresponds with the common division of man’s nature into the feeling, the thinking, and the willing part; the desire of pleasure corresponding to the appetites, the desire of knowledge to the intellect, while ambition, the desire of honour and of power, corresponds to the will. But human life consists in the exercise of these different elements of man’s nature. How is it possible, then, that these gifts of God should be the source of the evil that is in the world? If man were perfect, as God intended him to be, this would not be the case. His various impulses would all work harmoniously together under the control of reason and conscience, enlightened and guided by the Spirit of God himself. But we know that, whatever we may hope for the future, this is far from being the case at present. At present every impulse is a source of danger, because it is not satisfied with doing the work and attaining the end for which it was implanted in our nature, but continues to urge us on where its action is injurious, antagonistic to higher ends and higher activities, and contrary to the will of Him Who made us. It is these blind unruly impulses which constitute the spirit of the world, and are employed by him, who is described as the prince of this world, to band men together in evil, and so build up a kingdom of the world, in opposition to the kingdom of God. St. John implies the unrestrained action of these impulses when he tells us they make up all that is in the world. If we can trust contemporary evidence, the historians and satirists of Rome, no less than Christian writers, the moral condition of society in the imperial city is not too darkly coloured in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In the catalogue of sin and vice there given, two main lines of evil may be distinguished, which at first sight seem to be very remote from each other, but which are in fact closely allied, being continually associated together in history, as they are in Milton’s famous line, “Lust hard by hate.” Cruelty and profligacy were the most marked characteristics of the Caligulas and the Neros of Rome; they were the notes of that degraded aristocracy, in which even the women, dead to all sense of shame, were also dead to all feeling of pity, and could look on with a horrible delight at the sports in the arena, where gladiators were butchered to make a Roman holiday, and Christians were burnt alive at night in order to light up the chariot races of the emperor. And the profligacy of the capitol was faithfully copied in the provinces. St. Paul’s epistles, with their constant warnings against impurity, show how deeply even the humbler ranks of society, from which the Church was mainly recruited, were infected with this vice of paganism. We see, then, that as regards the desire or lust of the flesh, the state of contemporary society fully bore out St. John’s description of the world. How did the case stand with regard to the second point in his description, the lust of the eyes? Understanding this of the desire of knowledge, we find St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians describing it as the distinctive feature of the Greek as opposed to the Hebrew, that the Greeks seek after wisdom; but “God (he says) hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”; “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” So St. Luke mentions curiosity, which is merely the undisciplined desire of knowledge, as the chief characteristic of the Athenians, “all the Athenians spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.” Ephesus, where St. John is believed to have spent the latter part of his life, was especially noted for the study of curious arts, prying into forbidden things. Lastly, if we ask how far that third constituent of the worldly spirit, ambition, vainglory, the pride of life, was to be found in Paganism at the time of St. John’s writing, we need not look further than the temple of Ephesus, which was held to be one of the wonders of the world; we need only think of the magnificence of the architecture, the splendour of the ceremonial, the frenzied enthusiasm of the multitudes which gathered at the festival of “the great goddess Diana, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” How hard it must have been for the little band of Christians to realise that all this pageantry and power was but an empty show, destined in a few short years to vanish away; to feel that the weakness of God was stronger than men, that “God had chosen the base things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, that no flesh might glory in His presence.” And if this was true of a provincial town like Ephesus, how much more of what was even then known as the eternal city, to which all the wealth and power and greatness, all the art and science and skill of the whole earth was attracted, where one man commanded the lives and fortunes of all, and was worshipped as God on earth, the only God whose worship was obligatory on all. It was such a world-dominion as this, that St. John had in his mind, when he warned his disciples against being dazzled by the vainglory of life, when he spoke of the whole world lying in wickedness, when he encouraged them with the thought that “He that is born of God overcometh the world.” I think that what we have seen to be true of the pagan world of St. John’s day, is also true of all the more marked historical appearances of the worldly spirit. Two such appearances may be especially noticed. One was that period of revolt against the Middle Ages, which preceded and accompanied the Reformation, the other was that period of scepticism which prepared the way for the French Revolution. In both we find the most influential classes of society, those which may be regarded as the truest embodiment of the worldly spirit of their time, characterised by the combination of these three elements, the love of pleasure, the love of knowledge, and the love of power. Enlightenment was the special boast of both eras, and the effect of this enlightenment was to shake off the old-fashioned restraints of religion and morality and give free scope to the selfish instincts, whether in the direction of pleasure or ambition. Cæsar Borgia was the natural outcome of the first era; Napoleon Bonaparte of the second. (J. B. Mayor, M.A.)
Transitoriness of the lust of the flesh:—By “the lust of the flesh” I understand the animal needs and appetites, the physical strength and vigour. There is a period in life when the desires of the flesh exercise immense influence and subtle power over the imagination. They seem to promise illimitable delight and inexhaustible pleasures. The imagination runs through the world and sees everywhere alluring forms which point to intoxicating joys. That is not an unusual experience. It is common to all of us in the heyday of youth and strength, and I only allude to it to ask—Have you considered that this is passing away? Do you know that the gamut of appetite and passion is very limited after all? You can soon reach up and strike the topmost note, and downward and strike the lowest. Do you know that these violent delights have violent ends? They are soon exhausted, and the hungry passion is satiated, and the promise which it made is found a cheat. It is so. It is so if for no other reason than this—because physical life itself fails. Youth is soon gone; manhood is soon passed; old age is soon reached. You are not what you were. Already the keen edge and zest of earthly appetite is blunted. You dislike, perhaps, to admit it, and yet you know in your hearts that the best cup of wine which life has to give you is already drunk, and that life will never prepare again for you the like. (W. J. Dawson.)
The lust of the eyes:—The eye is the portal of innumerable delights. It is “the meeting-place of many worlds.” Through it there stream in upon the mind the vision of beauty, the revelation of sciences, the pomp and pageantry of earthly power, all the bright, shifting splendour of human glory. Have you ever considered that riches appeal mainly to the eye? It is the eye which interprets to a man the stateliness of the house which he has built, the beauty of the gardens which he has laid out, the picture’s charm, the statue’s grace, the horse’s symmetry—in a word, all those costly embellishments with which wealth can adorn life. To the blind man they are nothing. To be blind is to lose almost everything that riches can bestow. Yet, says John, the lust of the eyes, too, is a fading passion which is soon satiated. The first house a man buys looks better and bigger to him than any house he owns afterwards. The first picture a man owns brings him more genuine pleasure than all the others put together. That lust of the eye which desires to add house to house and land to land has a lessening pleasure in its acquisitions. Like the lust of the flesh, after all it is a life of sensation, and all sensation is limited and soon exhausted. You, perhaps, have set your hope in some such direction as this. You desire to be rich; your eye lusts for the luxurious abodes of wealth and the circumstance and state of social greatness. When the lust of the flesh fails, the lust of the eye often develops; and the man who has lost the one frantically tries to recoup himself by flying to the other. But it is vain. The miseries of the idle rich, their ennui, their listlessness, their discontent, their imbecile thirst for new sensations, their perpetual invention of new and artificial joys, remind us how true are the words of John, that the lust of the eyes, too, passes away. (Ibid.)
The pride of life is transitory:—It may signify either the pride of power or the pride of knowledge. 1. Take it, for instance, as the pride of power. Take it in regard to that great and splendid empire with which the apostles were familiar. It seemed built to last for ever. To be a Roman was to be armed with an invincible defence. It was a proud boast which clothed the meanest man with dignity. The tramp of the legions of Rome echoed in every city; the silver eagles were borne in triumph through all the world; its laws had imposed civilisation upon the most barbarous peoples; and its power had crushed nation after nation. There was no sign in John’s day of any overthrow. Yet this solitary man told the truth when he said, not merely that it would pass away, but that it was passing away. He recognised that mysterious law of God, which seems to give to nations their chance and strengthen them with universal victory, and then depose them, lest one good custom should corrupt the world. Egypt, Chaldea, Babylon, Greece, all had had their day, and ceased to be. And so it would be with Rome. We to-day know that it has passed away. 2. And it is true of the pride of knowledge. The noblest pride of life, because the highest, is the pride of knowledge. Yet that, too, is transient. Nothing shifts its boundaries so often. Nothing is so illusive. Nothing passes through such strange and rapid transformations. The knowledge of Galileo would be the ignorance of to-day; and if Isaac Newton were alive now he would have to go to school again. A century, a half-century, a single decade, is often sufficient to thrust the most brilliant discoveries into oblivion. The steam-engine has supplanted the coach; but the steam-engine is already passing away, and in fifty years’ time will be supplanted by some greater and more serviceable power. The telegraph has bound nations together and has made all nations neighbours; but the telephone is becoming its rival, and in another century, and less perhaps, men will hear each other’s whispers round the globe. A thousand illustrations might be given of how knowledge perpetually effaces its past. Nor is this a mournful truth. It is no tolling-bell which announces that the world is passing away. It is rather a trumpet. It means that God’s law is progress: and that is a glorious truth for those who can understand it. (Ibid.)
The worldling’s trinity:—Pleasure, profit, preferment (called here “the lust of the flesh,” &c.) are the worldling’s trinity, to the which he performeth inward and outward worship. (J. Trapp.) What is “the world”?—The world is not altogether matter, nor yet altogether spirit. It is not man only, nor Satan only, nor is it exactly sin. It is an infection, an inspiration, an atmosphere, a life, a colouring matter, a pageantry, a fashion, a taste, a witchery. None of all these names suit it, and all of them suit it. (S. Faber.)[13]
Because of what the world does
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (2:16)
The meaning of all that is in the world and is from the world appears in the three qualifying descriptions of sin’s categories. Sin is the dominant reality in the world, and launching from this verse it is helpful to look more extensively at sin, by definition called “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4)—any violation of God’s perfect and holy law. Whereas the law of God encompasses all that is righteous (Pss. 19:7; 119:142; Isa. 42:21; cf. Josh. 1:7–8; Ps. 119:18; Neh. 8:9, 18; Isa. 51:4; Matt. 22:36–40; Acts 28:23; Rom. 3:21; James 1:25), sin encompasses all that is unrighteous (Prov. 24:9; Matt. 15:19; 1 John 5:17; cf. Gen. 6:5).
Although it manifests itself in external actions, the roots of sin go much deeper, embedded in the very fabric of the depraved human heart. Sin permeates the fallen mind, internally defiling the sinner in every aspect of his being (cf. Matt. 15:18–20). Thus, the Old Testament likens sin to a deadly plague (1 Kings 8:38, nkjv) or filthy garments (Zech. 3:3–4; cf. Isa. 64:6). Sin is so foul that God hates it (Prov. 15:9) and sinners hate themselves (Ezek. 6:9) because of their inherent wickedness.
Sin is by nature both rebellious and ungrateful—so much so that if possible it would dethrone God in favor of sinners (cf. Ps. 12:4; Jer. 2:31; 44:17). Its attitude is that of Absalom, who when forgiven by his father, King David, nevertheless immediately plotted to overthrow him (2 Sam. 14:33–15:12). Romans 1:21 says of the ungodly, “Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks” (emphasis added; cf. 2 Tim. 3:2).
Sin is also humanly incurable. Sinners have no capacity in and of themselves to remedy their sin (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1). The prophet Isaiah described Israel’s incurably sinful condition:
Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from Him. Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil. (Isa. 1:4–6)
Sin is like a terminal illness, or hereditary condition, about which sinners can do nothing in their own strength. God demanded of Israel, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil” (Jer. 13:23; cf. Job 14:4; Matt. 7:16–18).
Finally, sin is universal. David wrote, “They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Ps. 14:3; cf. Isa. 53:1–3; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10–12; 5:12). Thus all people, left to their own devices, choose to sin:
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:19–20; cf. Ps. 7:14; Prov. 4:16; Isa. 5:18; Jer. 9:5)
It is because people are sinful that evil overpowers fallen mankind (cf. Gen. 6:5; John 8:34; Rom. 6:20a), such that all that unregenerate people can think about and do are sinful things, because sin so utterly dominates their minds, wills, and affections. It is because of sin that they are under Satan’s control, as slaves to the prince of darkness (cf. Eph. 2:2). It is because of sin that the unredeemed remain under the wrath of God, destined for eternal hell unless they repent (Ps. 9:17; Matt. 3:7, 10, 12; 7:13; 13:40–42; 25:41, 46; Luke 13:3; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Col. 3:6; Rev. 6:17; 19:15; 20:11–15). And it is because of sin that people are subject to all the miseries of this life. As Eliphaz the Temanite, one of Job’s friends, remarked, “Man is born for trouble” (Job 5:7a). And Solomon reminded his readers of the emptiness and meaninglessness that sin causes, “I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind” (Eccl. 1:14; cf. vv. 2, 8; Isa. 48:22; Rom. 8:20).
It is also crucial to rightly understand the nature of sin’s origin in human behavior. While it is true that temptation comes from Satan’s system (cf. Eph. 6:12; 1 Peter 5:8–9) through the world, sinful behavior cannot ultimately be blamed on external influences. The sinner himself is responsible for his sinful actions, which spring from his own wicked desires (James 1:13–16). Sin, then, abides in all human hearts, as Jesus clearly taught:
After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” (Mark 7:14–23; cf. Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; James 1:13–15)
The Lord’s words illustrate the doctrine of original sin; all sin stems from mankind’s fallen nature, and that nature derives from Adam and Eve’s initial disobedience (Genesis 3; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3; Eph. 2:3; 4:17–19; Col. 2:13a). Since then, it has been an integral part of everyone who has lived (Rom. 5:12–21).
Understanding the serious danger sin poses, the apostle John summarized the avenues the world uses to incite sin: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Though briefly stated, those three designations are of profound importance.
The lust of the flesh refers to the debased, ignoble cravings of evil hearts. The flesh denotes humanness and its sinful essence. The word translated lust (epithumia) is a common New Testament term denoting both positive and negative desires (Luke 22:15; Rom. 1:24; Phil. 1:23; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:22; Titus 3:3; James 1:14–15; 2 Peter 1:4; cf. Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:17; Heb. 6:11; James 4:2). Here it refers negatively to the sensual impulses from the world that draw people toward transgressions. The expression lust of the flesh brings to mind primarily sexual sins, but, while they are included in its definition, the phrase is certainly not limited to that meaning.
The base desire of the human heart perverts and distorts all normal desires (Jer. 17:9), sending them into a relentless, slavish pursuit of evil that exceeds the proper limits of what is good, reasonable, and righteous—any attitude, speech, or action that opposes God’s law (cf. Rom. 7:5; 8:7). Those lusts include all the immoral excesses about which Paul warned the Galatians:
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19–21; cf. Rom. 1:24–32; 1 Cor. 6:9–10)
Those sinful attitudes and actions are primary characteristics of the world system and are irresistibly appealing to the corruption of the unconverted soul.
The world also entices sinners to thoughts and actions contrary to God’s will through the lust of the eyes. Eyes are gifts from God (cf. Prov. 20:12; Eccl. 11:7) that enable people to see His beautiful creation and excellent works (cf. Pss. 8:3–4; 19:1; 33:5; 104:24; Isa. 40:26; Rom. 1:20). However, as they let in light, so they are open windows for temptation to enter; thus sin perverts the use of the eyes (cf. Prov. 27:20; Eccl. 1:8; 4:8) and plunges people into dissatisfaction, covetousness, and idolatry (cf. Pss. 106:19–20; 115:4; Eccl. 5:10). Lot’s wife misused her eyes, and God killed her as a result (Gen. 19:17, 26). Achan plundered the forbidden goods he saw, which also led to his death (Josh. 7:18–26; 22:20). From his rooftop David saw Bathsheba bathing, subsequently committed adultery with her, and paid severely for his sin the remainder of his life (2 Sam. 11:1–5; 12:1–20; Ps. 51:1–17). Because of such potential consequences, it is imperative for believers to guard their eyes (cf. Job 31:1; Ps. 101:3; 119:37). Jesus’ graphic hyperbole underscores the necessity of avoiding the lust of the eyes.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matt. 5:27–29)
The third human element that provides an avenue into the soul for temptation is the boastful pride of life. Such pride is the arrogance (cf. 1 Sam. 2:3; 17:4–10, 41–45; Pss. 10:3; 75:4; Prov. 25:14; Jer. 9:23; Rom. 1:30; James 3:5; 4:16) that arguably motivates all other sin, including the lust of the flesh and eyes, as it seeks to elevate self above everyone else (cf. Ps. 10:2, 4; Prov. 26:12; Dan. 5:20; Luke 18:11–12; Rom. 12:3, 16). Pride is the corruption of the noblest parts of man’s essence (cf. Ps. 10:2–6, 11; Prov. 16:18–19), his rationality and spirit that were created for him by God (Gen. 1:26–27). Instead of accepting that reality with appropriate humility and gratitude to God, sinners exalt themselves and seek fulfillment in things that glorify the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:22–25).
In the flesh (sensuality), humanity functions according to the base desires of animals (cf. Ex. 32:1–9, 19–20, 25). With the eyes (covetousness), individuals seek to have more than others (cf. Luke 12:16–21). Through pride, humanity defies God and arrogantly attempts to dethrone the Sovereign of the universe (cf. Gen. 11:2–4). That threefold matrix of temptation, however, is more than a theological abstraction. Two of the most foundational and pivotal passages in Scripture, Genesis 3:1–7 and Luke 4:1–13, support concretely and historically how Satan has attacked via those avenues.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’ ” The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:1–7)
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’ ” And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’ ” And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning you to guard you,’ and, ‘on their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ” And Jesus answered and said to him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ” When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time. (Luke 4:1–13)
In both cases Satan utilized the same threefold temptation to attack his target. Adam and Eve succumbed in Genesis 3:6, plunging the human race into sin: “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” The devil appealed to Eve’s desire for food (lust of the flesh), her desire to have something attractive (lust of the eyes), and her desire to have wisdom (pride of life). Adam accepted the same enticements without protest and ate the fruit his wife gave him, and Satan’s kingdom gained its initial foothold on earth.
In the second account, Satan used a similar approach as he sought to derail Jesus’ redemptive mission (cf. Matt. 16:21–23; John 13:21–30). He appealed to the Lord’s humanity (His hunger for bread), His eyes (His appreciation of the world’s splendor), and His perceived pride (His jumping from the temple’s pinnacle would have presumed on God’s protection and gained extra prestige when He landed safely). But all three of the Devil’s sinister approaches were unsuccessful as the Lord refuted each appeal by quoting Old Testament truth (Deut. 8:3; 6:13, 16; cf. 10:20).
It is not surprising, then, to see that the world, under Satan’s leadership, continues to assault sinners through those same three pathways of temptation. The Devil plays on the corruptibility of the fallen human heart to achieve the maximum impact for evil and chaos in the world. But believers are not slaves to the diabolical, corrupt world system (Rom. 6:5–14; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8–9; 1 John 4:1–6). Like their Lord who has redeemed them, they possess the ability to successfully resist the temptations of this world (cf. Rom. 8:1–13; James 4:7).[14]
16 John has just referred to “loving the world” and to the fact that Christians must not do this. Does this mean Christians are to take a hostile posture toward nonbelievers and isolate themselves from them? And if such is the case, how could John’s remarks be consistent with the teaching of Jesus at John 3:16? To clarify his point, John now specifies the things “of the world” that Christians must avoid. Two issues must be addressed in considering this verse. First, what is the function of the hoti that introduces John’s statement? The NIV, in an effort to remain neutral, translates hoti as “For”: “For everything in the world …” Is this the most natural reading? Second, what does John mean by “the world” here? Is he referring to people, to things, or to something else?
On the first question, the NKJV and NEB treat hoti as an insignificant connective particle, omitting the word in English translation. The NIV, NASB, and NRSV suggest that hoti has causal force, so that the test at v. 15 is valid because nothing in the world is from the Father. It seems, however, that John is once again using hoti to introduce direct discourse, reminding his audience of a familiar slogan about the world. In the light of John’s general posture toward the world, it is reasonable to conclude that slogans similar to the one in v. 16 were used by Johannine preachers to encourage believers to keep themselves separate from worldly things.
What, then, does this slogan suggest about “the world”? Elsewhere in the Johannine literature “the world” clearly refers to people who do not accept Jesus (see Introduction). The description of “the world or anything in the world” offered here, however, suggests that John is thinking of the lifestyle of those who are guided by their instincts rather than the Spirit. He characterizes this lifestyle with three broad statements (translated rather loosely in the NIV): “the lust [epithymia, GK 2123] of the flesh” (NIV, “the cravings of sinful man”); “the lust of the eyes” (NIV, “the lust of his eyes”); and “the pride of life” (NIV, “the boasting of what he has and does”). It seems clear that John is now switching from the objective genitive of v. 15 to the subjective genitive, nominating three sources of “lust” and “boasting” (flesh, eyes, and pride). The “lust of the flesh” is thus “lust which comes from the flesh” or originates with the flesh, i.e., physical desire. The “lust of the eyes” (Rensberger, 74, calls it “an unusual phrase, not clearly related to biblical, Jewish, or general Hellenistic moral teaching”) seems to refer here to a faulty spiritual perception. In a similar way the Johannine Jesus says that the Pharisees are “blind” because they do not accept him (Jn 9:39–41; see also 12:40), and the Synoptic Jesus occasionally uses sight as a metaphor for spiritual judgment (Mt 5:29; 6:22–23; 7:3–5; Lk 11:34). Combined with “lust of the flesh,” “lust of the eyes” describes the faulty moral perception arising from a value system that is not centered on the revelation of God in Jesus. The “pride of life” uses bios (GK 1050) instead of the more typically Johannine zōē (GK 2437), referring specifically to biological life rather than spiritual life (see comment at 1 Jn 1:2). The term bios can also have connotations of material wealth (i.e., “making a living,” “living the good life”), so that the NIV translates the same word as “material possessions” at 3:17. Those who take pride in such things, placing their confidence either in social position or money, are not motivated by the Father’s commands.
Brown, 326, notes that “not the sinful but an absence of the otherworldly is what characterizes the three factors” mentioned here. John expects believers to distinguish themselves from the world, and he concludes that those who are not sufficiently distinct are “not from the Father.” Those whose lives are directed by such lusts cannot truly have love for God within themselves (v. 15). John here touches on a theme, common in the teachings of Jesus, that Christian ethics often contradict natural human intuition.[15]
16 John now proceeds to explain more fully why love for the world is incompatible with love for God. It is because everything in the world is not from God but from the world itself. Its origin lies in the world, viewed as a system organized in opposition to God. The things in the world share in the character of the world. But this is a staggering statement. Surely the world was created by God (Jn. 1:3): how, then, can everything in it be opposed to God and said not to stem from him? Is everything in the world so tainted that the believer is not to desire it? The answer to these questions becomes clear when we consider the kind of specific things which John has in mind. These show that he is thinking of the world insofar as it has become fallen and rebellious, the source of desires which stand in opposition to the love of God. The language may seem exaggerated, but it is timely: anything in the world can become a source of sinful desire, even though it is good in itself. John is here expressing what used to be called “total depravity,” by which is meant not that the world is as bad as it can possibly be but that its badness is universal.
John lists three typical features of the sinful world. The first is “the cravings of sinful man,” literally “the desire of the flesh,” i.e. the desire that comes from the flesh. In itself “desire” is a morally neutral word. It takes on a good or bad connotation from the context, and here it plainly has the latter force. The same is to some extent true of “flesh,” which can mean no more than the substance of which man is made and hence refer to various aspects of human, bodily life. But the fleshly body can be the source of sensual desires and lusts, whether for food and drink or for sexual gratification. It is, therefore, possible to take the phrase here to be a reference to the desire for sensual pleasure, especially sexual desire.35 This would give a contrast with the more “refined” desires which follow in John’s brief list. Certainly the first-century world was noted for its sensuality, and the New Testament writers generally were aware of this fact and warned their readers against it. But it is perhaps more likely that John is here using “flesh” in its Jewish and biblical sense of the nature of man as a whole as a worldly being separated from and opposed to God; for Paul in particular “flesh” designates “the outlook orientated towards the self, that which pursues its own ends in self-sufficient independence of God.” It is the whole nature of sinful man which is comprehended in this phrase, and not merely his bodily, sensual desires. Any and every desire of man in his rebellion against God is what is meant.37 The NIV translation as “the cravings of sinful man” is accordingly justified.
The second feature of the world is the lust of the eyes. The eyes are often the source of desire, and the thought here is of the greed which is aroused by what one sees. One may think particularly of the desire to watch things which give sinful pleasure, as in the case of pornography, or of the tendency to be captivated by outward, visible splendor and show, but more probably the basic thought is of greed and desire for things aroused by seeing them.
The third feature is pride in possessions. The word for “possessions” is literally “life,” a word that can be used of the things that support life (cf. Mk. 12:44). The word “pride” refers to boasting and arrogance, but it conveys a strong hint of the ultimate emptiness of boasting; it means the braggadocio which exaggerates what it possesses in order to impress other people. E. K. Simpson claims that bogus assumption lies at the base of the word, and comments: “When the apostle John abandons, as here, his spare vocabulary for a polysyllabic noun, there must be cogent reasons for his procedure. He is contemplating the unregenerate world as a Vanity Fair, and the full strength of his expression can be brought out only by some such translation as the charlatanry or make-believe of life.”
We may regard the first of these three features as the inclusive concept, filled out in the other two. Selfish human desire is stimulated by what the eye sees and expresses itself in outward show. And this is not from God but from the world, for it expresses a sense of human self-sufficiency and independence from God and of human greed over against the needs of other people (3:17). Clearly all people need possessions, and therefore it cannot be wrong to want and take pleasure in and what God has provided for our needs. But when I begin to desire more than other people, to covet whatever I see, to boast of what I have, and to claim that I am self-sufficient, then my desires have become perverse and sinful, and I stand condemned. John’s teaching stands as a timeless warning against materialism.
Some commentators have seen a parallel to John’s three sinful attitudes in the motives which animated Eve when she yielded to temptation: she saw that the forbidden tree was good for food, that it was a delight to the eyes, and that it was to be desired to make her wise. The correspondence, however, is not especially close.[16]
[1] Yarbrough, R. W. (2017). 1 John. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1995). Holman Bible Publishers.
[3] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Jn 2:16). Lexham Press.
[7] Hodges, Z. C. (2010). The First Epistle of John. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (pp. 1201–1202). Grace Evangelical Society.
[9] Morris, L. L. (1994). 1 John. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 1402). Inter-Varsity Press.
[14] MacArthur, J. (2007). 1, 2, 3 John (pp. 85–90). Moody Publishers.
[15] Thatcher, T. (2006). 1 John. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition) (Vol. 13, pp. 445–446). Zondervan.
Scripture teaches that human leadership is ordained by God. So what does He do when authorities abuse their power over His people? Hear what happened when a top official plotted to destroy the Jewish population. Listen to Truth For Life with Alistair Begg.
“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought.” Jeremiah 17:7-8…
“COME unto me all you who are weary and heavy burdened and I will give you rest…for your souls.” Matthew 11:28
Sometimes we can feel parked in our faith and not moving forward in trusting God. In those times it’s important to be intentional in responding to God’s invitation to find rest and trust Him.
God promises to draw near to us as we draw near to Him. It’s a promise you can count on. So come now and intentionally draw near, right where you are.
C – CAST your concerns
“Cast all your cares on Him for He cares for you.” 1 Peter 5:7
Bring Him your unanswered question/self pity/your disappointment/ your distracted life …. to Him. Voice your specific need right now.
O – OPEN your heart
“Don’t worry about anything but pray about everything. Tell God your needs and don’t forget to thank Him for His answers.” Philippians 4:6&7
Open your heart completely to Him and tell Him all your doubts and reservations. He understands you. Don’t forget to thank Him that He hears and will answer you.
M – MAKE REQUEST
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16
Lay aside your own best thinking and confidently ask God to give you what He knows you need today. Thank Him for His mercy and grace in your times of need.
E – EXPECT
“May the God of Hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Romans 15:13
Let His peace and joy flow over you and spill out to those around you.
Lord God, Thank you that I can sit in Your presence and let Your love settle over me. Speak to my heart as I allow each one of these verses too steep in my heart just as tea steeps in a pot and flavors the water. Thank you that You are all that I need today. I pray this in the strong name of Jesus, amen.
Future Americans Will Be “Prisoners Of The State” Living In “Open Air Jails”} …Ostensibly the reason that the WEF has been pushing the 15 minute city idea is to bring us back to those smaller self sufficient groupings of families, or the so-called “it takes a village” concept. On the simplest surface level that might seem to be a good option; go back to what works best. But things are not what they seem.
The ‘Jesus Revolution’ Movie And All The Other Current Media Promotions Of This ‘Another Jesus’ Are Paving The Way For Acceptance Of LGBTQIA In Churches} If you’ve been paying attention to all the various moving parts of the current ‘Jesus Revolution’ movie craze, you will find 2 themes that pop up constantly into all the various elements like the Asbury Revival, the ‘He Gets Us’ commercials, and all the rest. The first thing you’ll notice is that it preaches a gospel based on experience and emotions instead of the sound preaching of Paul’s gospel. The second thing you find is that the whole movement is working itself toward the acceptance and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church. That’s the goal, that’s the end game, and if you are not on board, you’re the enemy.
Ransomware Attack On Food Giant Dole Temporarily Shuttered US Production Dole Food is one of the world’s largest producers and distributors of fresh fruits and vegetables. An alarming report reveals the company temporarily shuttered all operations across North America after a cyberattack earlier this month.
Some US states want to bring back child labor instead of giving adult workers better pay …some states are finding ways to undercut the working class. One method, as Business Insider reports, is for the US to start allowing children aged 14-17 into the workforce. The federal government has said this practice is already increasing in an illicit fashion, too.
As Public Trust Wanes, FDA Pledges to ‘Save Lives’ by Policing Online Content Since U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf began his second tenure as the agency’s head in February 2022, he has made combating “misinformation” one of his top priorities, arguing it is “a leading cause of preventable death in America now” — though “this cannot be proved,” he said.
Terra Forming Terra: Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries I have been looking for real data regarding birth rates, and at this point, they are been deliberately been withheld. so far we have a quarter drop in birth rates with no effort to determine yet what is going on.
Some US Troops Will Still Have to Get COVID-19 Vaccine, Pentagon Says After Mandate Ends Certain U.S. troops will still be mandated to receive COVID-19 vaccines, the Department of Defense (DoD) said in a recent memorandum. Troops who are deployed to countries that require COVID-19 vaccination must satisfy the requirements, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks said in the Feb. 24 document.
Despite Biden’s resistance, even the FBI director now admits the Wuhan bioweapons lab was the viral source.
Mark Alexander
The new and long-overdue House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party fired its opening salvos at the ChiComs this week. Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) warned, “This is an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century, and the most fundamental freedoms are at stake.” Indeed it is.
The committee launched its investigations in the same month that a Department of Energy (DOE) report concluded that, based on “new intelligence,” the ChiCom Virus pandemic had its origins at the Wuhan “research” lab. This disputes the Beijing-contrived conspiracy theory embraced by Joe Biden that the virus originated in a Wuhan wet market.
Remarkably, FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a compelling media interview, also declared, “The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” what he characterized as “a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab.” Wray concluded, “The Chinese government … has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here, the work that we’re doing, the work that our U.S. government and close foreign partners are doing” to resolve the origins of COVID.
Like the DOE, Wray dutifully inserted “most likely” into his assessment, but it has been clear to everyone with a pulse that this virus was man-made in China. Notably, in May of 2020, two months after Donald Trump’s first effort to “flatten the curve” — about which we asked, “Is the COVID-19 Cure Killing Us?” — we wrote that the evidence against China’s P4 lab as the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was irrefutable.
Predictably, Wray’s assertion prompted Xi Jinping’s propagandist spokesperson Mao Ning to issue a rebuttal claiming U.S. officials have a “track record” of “making up stories,” and “the conclusions they draw have no credibility whatsoever.” She laughably added, “We urge the U.S. side to respect science and facts, stop politicizing the issue of COVID traceability, stop engaging in political traceability and intelligence traceability, and stop interfering with and undermining the international community’s unity against the epidemic and global scientific cooperation on traceability.”
That is an amazing load of bull pucky and about as credible as China’s longtime lie that there had only been 5,272 deaths nationwide in a country of 1.412 billion people, a lie to placate its own people in order to avoid excessive political unrest.
Unfortunately, the ChiComs know that, because a small cadre of corrupt senior FBI officials made up stories about Russian collusion with former President Trump, Mao’s accusing the FBI of lying about COVID origins will make a soft landing. The public approval ratings for the FBI dropped to historic lows over the last two years, though unlike public approval for Biden, those numbers have improved slightly in recent months.
For Biden to acknowledge that the virus originated in a ChiCom-controlled lab would lead to the next question — did the Chinese intentionally kill a million Americans and shut down the U.S. economy, or was that an “accident”?
Either way, acknowledging the virus origin creates immediate and significant foreign policy challenges for Biden, and he and his inept administrators are not up to the task. By contrast, it is worth noting that Trump did more to correct our nation’s course with and dependence on China than any president in decades. Unfortunately, in 2020 he completely undermined all the domestic and foreign policy good he had done by putting a bureaucratic troll, Anthony Fauci, in charge of our national recovery. That terrible decision weighed large in the successful Democrat strategy to defeat Trump that same year.
The U.S. Department of Energy has finally come around, but what of the last three years?
Anthony Brian Logan
A newly updated “classified” intelligence report states that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China. Sources say the U.S. Department of Energy only has low confidence in the “lab leak” theory. So, although the government is finally coming to grips with the fact that this virus did not simply appear out of thin air, it is also not quite prepared to fully admit that it was totally wrong.
The obvious question, the elephant in the room, is as follows: What is the average American supposed to do with this day-late, dollar-short information?
For years, anyone who attempted to pin the virus’s origin on the lab in Wuhan was considered a heretic at worst and a racist at best. People all over the world, not just American citizens, were supposedly “tin-foil-hat-wearers” and other random pejorative terms for simply stating the obvious. Americans were specifically lumped into the “Trump supporter” and “right-wing nut job” categories. It was simply impossible to voice a logical opinion about COVID that did not align with mainstream thought without being attacked.
The initial explanation of COVID starting with a random Chinese person eating an unclean bat never made any sense, especially considering the circumstances. First of all, global contagions don’t start from random food-borne illnesses. At least, nothing like that has happened in a very long time.
Wuhan has a gain-of-function facility smack dab in the middle of the city. The purpose of these facilities is to experiment on viruses, just like the coronavirus (akin to the common cold). China is a notoriously filthy place where a single bar of soap may be difficult to come across even in a hospital. The obvious thing that happened here was that the virus escaped the lab in Wuhan due to careless practices. It infected citizens locally and then spread out to the entire world through airplane travel. China should be held liable here due to improper practices at the lab and also for allowing citizens to travel globally while restricting local movement.
Now, part of the U.S. government admits what millions of people around the world suspected for the past three years. And it owns up to this without any sort of apology. No admission of guilt, and, quite frankly, barely even a complete admission. People who lost their jobs, maybe even their lives, are left without recourse. Those who fought the good fight can shout “I told you so!” from the mountaintops, but the damage done by government overreach may never be repaired.
Maybe the government had internal battles among actual scientists and researchers who wanted to alert the public of the truth that they have known for years now. Politicians are motivated to keep the truth under wraps for their own sake. “Scientists” who also blend into the political world, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, are the perfect case study for this conflict. Fauci would say certain things publicly that made sense from a scientific level, and then retract those things when they conflicted with politics. Fauci famously admitted to “lying” about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of mask-wearing early on because he did not want there to be a “run” on masks. And the ironic part about his admission is that he did not lie in the first place. Fauci originally said that masks do not work as the wearer may think they do, and he was right.
Another “admission” from the federal government and related officials, like CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, was about the whole idea of masks. For years, the American people were told that mask-wearing was essential. If we did not wear masks, then we were uncaring beings who scoffed at the idea of protecting society at large. Messaging on masks was combined with even more ominous warnings about becoming vaccinated. The news became so infatuated with carrying out the federal government’s decree that they started to run ridiculous stories about the benefits of wearing two or three masks at once. All of this was a completely absurd mess.
The United States is a beacon of hope to millions, if not billions, across the world. However, the government of this great country has become unrecognizable, a monster with its tentacles wrapped up in global politics that often interfere with the lives of its citizens. So much deceit and obvious graft are present within the government that it is no surprise the average person’s confidence in the system is at rock bottom. It is not quite clear what can be done to turn this around.
A great way to start is by leveling with the American people in a clear and concise way, instead of gaslighting them into oblivion for the sake of global politics and financial gain.
The Chicago mayor’s legacy of corruption and chaos in the Windy City comes to an end.
Emmy Griffin
Chicago has always had a reputation for underhanded politics, mafia-influenced elections, and other seedy goings on. And yet the Windy City has carried on apace as the cleaner New York with a higher murder rate. Chicago has been the making of many Democrat elected officials such as former President Barack Obama, who was first a community organizer in Chicago before becoming a senator, and Rahm Emanuel, who previously served two terms as mayor of Chicago and who is the current U.S. ambassador to Japan.
Lori Lightfoot, the current mayor of Chicago, has now seen her own political star fall, as she lost reelection yesterday.
Lightfoot was an underdog candidate when she took office in May 2019. As she herself will tell you, she is the first black woman mayor of Chicago who is also openly gay. In a deep-blue city like Chicago, she checks all the identity and grievance political boxes. However, her four years in office have also given many Chicagoans an especially bad taste in their mouths. Between her openly autocratic handling of COVID, doing nothing to curb the quickly rising crime, poor economic policy, and using illegal practices to promote her current campaign, she has not made herself very popular.
Lightfoot made her mark during COVID when she earned the nickname “little Napoleon in pant suits.” She, along with other Democrat mayors and governors, would scornfully oppose anything that the Trump administration would propose. She personally became the biggest acolyte of the mask and mandatory vaccine cult, even going so far as to make crazy promotional videos telling Chicagoans to “stay at home” and dressing up as the “rona destroyer” to let the city know the trick-or-treat rules in October 2020.
Ironically, she also made headlines in 2020 when, after she put the city on lockdown, she herself flouted her own rules and went to see a hairdresser, proving that she is much better at telling people what to do than following her own edicts.
As ridiculous a spectacle as she made of herself during COVID, Lightfoot also has overseen a 20% increase in crime with a decided spike in 2022. Between murders and other sorts of violence in the city, Lightfoot has had to ask for help from the Department of Justice and has raised the budget to refund the Chicago Police Department (CPD). However, throwing money at the problem or blaming Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx for her crime imbroglio isn’t solving the issue (though in Foxx’s case she does have a valid point). The CPD feels unsupported by her. The police blame her policies for tying their hands and for getting officers killed.
Businesses have moved their companies out of the city.
The Chicago Bears are even planning to move their stadium to a northern suburb to prevent their fans from suffering from city criminals.
This issue of high crime and public safety were definitely on the ballot this election. According to a recent poll of Chicago voters, two-thirds are unhappy with progressive prosecution policies. Sixty-seven percent replied that they disapprove “of the way the criminal justice system in Chicago handles those who are arrested for certain violent crimes such as carjacking, armed robbery or home invasion,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Lightfoot has also proudly instituted progressive and oppressive economic burdens on the citizenry. She is the proud pusher of the $15 minimum wage and is a loud advocate for universal basic income. The economy is the second-most important issue for Chicago voters.
Then there are the unethical campaign strategies that Lightfoot has employed leading up to this election. As stated before, Chicago is hardly a beacon for clean politics. However, Lightfoot has stooped to new lows. In January, she was blasted both locally and nationally for violating election ethics. She had sent a letter to Chicago public school teachers advocating for an “externship” — i.e., campaigning for her reelection campaign for class credit.
Then there was her latest gaffe. A few weekends ago at a campaign event where she was speaking to Southside Chicago residents, she said if they were voting for “somebody not named Lightfoot,” it amounted to “a vote for Chuy Garcia or Paul Vallas,” the two front runners. “If you want them controlling your fate and your destiny,” she said, “then stay home. Then don’t vote.” These comments could be considered election interference. The criticism of her comments was swift and decisive, forcing her to walk things back, claiming she “misspoke” during the heat of a campaign.
As if her policies, her electioneering, and her overall destruction of Chicago weren’t enough of an indictment against her, Lightfoot’s character is the nail in the coffin. She dismisses her concerned constituents as “haters,” racist, or sexist. This is a tried and true strategy for radical leftist politicians but alienated the city that has suffered under her policies.
Chicago’s elections yesterday determined who all 50 aldermen will be as well as Chicago’s mayor. It was a high-interest election with lots of early voting as a result. Lightfoot was one of nine candidates running for mayor, and Chicago has spoken. Lori Lightfoot has gone out in the first round with 83% voting against her.
The runoff election will be held in April and the candidates are Paul Vallas, who won 33.8% of the vote, and Brandon Johnson, who won 20.3% of the vote.
Just remember, Lightfoot wasn’t ousted by a Republican but by a couple of fellow Democrats. The last time Chicago had a Republican mayor was 1931, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon.
Economic freedom hits new low, FDA green-lights dangerous home abortion drug, Buttigieg gets probed, and more.
Thomas Gallatin & Jordan Candler
Cross-Examination
Economic freedom hits new low under Biden: Americans’ economic freedom has hit its lowest level since The Heritage Foundation first launched the annual national global comparison review back in 1995. With this latest economic freedom index, a few key conclusions are evident. Both national and global economies have taken a downturn. A notable shifting of position has occurred with the top 10 world economies, and the U.S. economy no longer cracks the top 10 or even the top 20 world economies — it’s now the 25th freest economy. China has dropped to 154 out of 176 total countries for economic freedom, its lowest ranking on the index ever. Finally, the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agenda is leading the U.S. economy in the wrong direction on the freedom index. Fewer stifling government regulations and a greater embrace of personal responsibility leads to greater economic freedom.
FDA green-lights dangerous home abortion drug: Abortion absolutists were incensed when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, with many Democrats condemning the decision as an attack against women’s rights and Joe Biden crying that “it put the health and lives of women across this nation at risk.” Well, the Biden administration seems intent on ensuring that Biden’s claim comes to pass, as the Food and Drug Administration recently green-lighted the abortion drug mifepristone (Mifeprex) for at-home use without the requirement of physician supervision. Mifepristone has been classified by the FDA as a high-risk drug since 2011 due to “serious safety concerns,” as it can cause life-threatening internal bleeding. However, in a move that follows the politics while ignoring the science, the FDA bent its own safety rules so Biden can make a dangerous abortion drug available for women to use unsupervised in their own homes because he “cares” about their health. Meanwhile, Big Pharma is high-fiving Biden’s FDA.
Buttigieg gets probed: Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who is conveniently AWOL every time the country faces a major transportation-related crisis, is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General over his frequent use of the Transportation Department’s private jets. The IG was alerted to Buttigieg’s travel behavior by the government watchdog organization Americans for Public Trust, whose executive Caitlin Sutherland pointed out: “Everyday Americans have faced unprecedented flight cancelations and disruptions, but Buttigieg has continued to fly private, even on a Coast Guard plane and even when commercial options were readily available.” Fox News reports that Buttigieg has taken at least 18 Federal Aviation Administration jet flights since he’s been the secretary. Buttigieg’s office claimed that those private FAA flights were taken because they were cheaper than chartering commercial flights. Maybe those FAA flights were due to Buttigieg having trouble booking flights on Southwest to “get away.”
Manchin sides with GOP against DC crime law: Thanks to the Democrat senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, Republicans are on the cusp of repealing Washington, DC’s dangerous lax-on-crime law. Indeed, the law is so bad that even DC’s Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser attempted to veto it. With 31 House Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans against the law, Manchin was unequivocal in his decision: “I don’t support it. I mean, I want to put people away, I don’t want to let them out. … I would vote to rescind it.”
Eco warrior Greta Thunberg protests “clean energy” wind farm: Is Greta Thunberg really focused on the climate, or is this really all about Greta? The 20-year-old activist chained herself to the entry of Norway’s Ministry of Energy on Monday to protest wind turbines in the country’s arctic region. You see, the wind farm crosses over land used by the Sami indigenous people for their reindeer herds, and they want it torn down. The wind farm continues to operate despite a 2021 ruling from Norway’s Supreme Court that it violated Sami rights. “Indigenous rights, human rights, must go hand-in-hand with climate protection and climate action,” Thunberg explained. It “can’t happen at the expense of some people” because “then it is not climate justice.” Evidently, if you are of a certain minority ethnicity and object to renewable energy, then Thunberg’s alarmist demands don’t apply. But how dare the rest of us even question the wisdom of eschewing all fossil fuels in favor of renewables and nothing else.
Smithsonian erases women: The Smithsonian’s new American Women’s History Museum that will be built in Washington, DC, will not only feature women but also men who identify as women. According to interim director Lisa Sasaki, the coming museum will include “transgender women” (biological men who say they are women) due to the Left’s “inclusivity” dogma. She ironically states, “From the DNA of this museum, there has been a desire to be inclusive.” Evidently, that scientific biological identifier that distinguishes between male and female — DNA — will be excluded because “inclusivity.” If anyone can be a “woman” in the Smithsonian’s view, then why build a museum to “women”? One wonders if all the restrooms in the new museum will be marked as “women’s.” It would certainly be in keeping with the Smithsonian’s “inclusivity” concerns.
Headlines
FBI Director Chris Wray refuses to say what role feds played in January 6 riot (Daily Wire)
Biden admin finally bans TikTok on government devices (Free Beacon)
Murderers’ era: Roughly half of homicides going unsolved in U.S. (Daily Wire)
Biden taps Julie Su to lead Labor Department (Roll Call)
Mortgage demand from homebuyers drops to a 28-year low (CNBC)
Lawsuit: New York teacher “forced” and “manipulated” fifth-grader to become transgender, causing suicidal ideation (Fox News)
Oregon puts gas generator into governor’s mansion despite “transition away” from fossil fuels in homes (Epoch Times)
Policy: A legal reckoning on student loan forgiveness (National Review)
Satire: Fauci jealous as China getting all the credit for creating COVID (Babylon Bee)
The Supreme Court heard a pair of legal challenges to Joe Biden’s debt forgiveness scheme, but the Left was mostly reduced to screaming and yelling.
Douglas Andrews
One of the core American values — indeed, one of the core Western values — is a belief in individual responsibility, a belief that one ought to be accountable for one’s own actions and utterances.
As William H. Young writes on the website of the National Association of Scholars, “Individual responsibility has been the foundation of human achievement throughout Western civilization.” He continues:
At the American founding, informed by Western civilization, particularly the philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, the ideal individual was a cultural type with an independent intellect and intrinsic common sense, grounded by an innate moral sense, and living by moral principles and habits — exercising adult personal responsibility. The curriculum in American colleges reflected that ideal for our leadership elite until the end of the nineteenth century.
Then it all went to crap.
Not all at once, of course, but today’s grievance-mongering leftist indoctrination centers bear precious little resemblance to the universities of the late 1890s. As conservative author and thinker Dennis Prager continually reminds us, the Left wrecks everything it touches.
So it goes with higher ed in America, and so it goes with the notion of individual responsibility — which includes the age-old belief that one ought to pay back one’s debts. Were this not the case, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have even entertained arguments yesterday on the constitutionality of the heist otherwise known as Joe Biden’s student loan “forgiveness” scheme.
Forget, for a moment, that college is a grift and a racket; that it’s a reeducation camp for impressionable young people and a jobs program for lazy, tenured, know-it-all leftists who couldn’t otherwise cut it in the working world. And forget for a moment that the cost of a college education is an obscenity; that tuition costs since 1980 have vastly outstripped the rate of inflation — 1,200% for tuition compared to 236% overall. Forget all that. Remember only that in a civilized society, people must be responsible for their debts.
Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats couldn’t care less about individual responsibility or unpaid debts, which is why his student loan debt forgiveness plan would cancel $10,000 in federal student loans for those making less than $125,000 per year or households earning less than $250,000 per year.
Nice giveaway if you can get it.
The Biden administration’s case is weak, and the antics of his supporters call to mind the trial lawyer who can’t pound the facts and can’t pound the law and is therefore left to pound only the table. Check out this meltdown by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who, along with numerous other rabble-rousers — including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush — was arguing weakly but loudly at the Student Debt Crisis Center’s rally yesterday in front of the Supreme Court.
“And frankly, and this is what really pisses me off,” Weingarten shrieked. “During the pandemic, we understood that small businesses were hurting, and we helped them, and it didn’t go to the Supreme Court to challenge it! Big businesses were hurting, and we helped them, and it didn’t go to the Supreme Court to challenge it! All of a sudden, when it’s about our students, they challenge it! The corporations challenge it! The student loan lenders challenge it! That is not right! That is not fair! And that is what we are fighting as well when we say, ‘Cancel student debt!’ This is about the people, and it is about the people’s future, and it is about all of your futures!”
That pandemic argument is a comical non sequitur, and it’s been picked up by a Biden cabinet member, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, who ought to know better: “As far as folks who say, you know, ‘I’ve already paid my [student loan] debt,’” he said, “well, that happened prior to the pandemic.”
Team Biden must think we’re stupid. These student loan debts were accumulated and have been kicked down the road since long before anyone ever heard of COVID-19.
Still, Weingarten is right about that last part: This is about all of our futures. And our futures will be even more grim if the Supreme Court allows Joe Biden to get away with this vote-buying giveaway.
“This is a righteous fight,” said Honest Injun Elizabeth Warren, “and we cannot let a Supreme Court that is an extremist court take away the opportunity for millions of Americans to have a little racial justice, a little economic justice, a little opportunity to build more secure futures going forward.”
Nothing like stirring up some racial resentment to help make one’s constitutional case.
If we’re to glean anything from the justices’ remarks, we ought to feel pretty comfortable about the outcome. At least if Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s comment that some of the judiciary’s “finest moments” were when courts pushed back on presidential emergency powers is any indication.
Justice Neil Gorsuch may have tipped his hand last year when he wrote in a case involving executive powers: “When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
Regardless of the outcome, though, leftists will be undeterred. They couldn’t care less about what’s constitutional and what isn’t, and the Democrats will no doubt move on to the next giveaway and the next opportunity to buy the votes of the American people.
If anything, this case will clearly demarcate the difference between the nation’s two political parties — one that stands for individual responsibility, and the other that stands for government giveaways. “The glorification of victimhood,” said Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw, “has convinced a whole generation of young people that the student debt they chose to incur for their own benefit is not theirs to repay.”
That, we think, is a pretty solid closing argument.
Revelations in a defamation suit damage the network’s credibility, but its competitors can stop gloating.
Nate Jackson
The 2020 presidential election was at best tainted. Was it “stolen”? That depends on what you mean. We’ve argued from the beginning that Democrats undermined the integrity of the election with pandemic-justified changes to election law, such as growing Election Day into election season and greatly expanding mail-in voting. Big Tech and Big Media suppressed damning news about Joe Biden’s corruption, censored conservatives, and harangued President Donald Trump.
That last part fed the fact that Trump was utterly hated by millions of Americans. Given the election rules, the pandemic, the shattered (but recovering) economy, and the derangement over Trump personally, it’s no wonder Biden won by promising moderate stability.
Heh.
Yet Trump and his legal team, and a lot of Americans, argued and many continue to believe that vote-counting machines and/or software changed the results of the presidential contest. It was stolen and rigged, they insisted, because Trump got more votes than any GOP candidate ever, improved upon his 2016 vote tally, and, well, he just couldn’t possibly have lost fair and square.
The allegation of rigging and stealing was soon labeled by the Leftmedia, without a hint of self-awareness, as “the Big Lie.” We’ll come back to that.
Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic eventually filed massive defamation lawsuits against Fox News (and others) for allowing allegations about vote-counting shenanigans on-air in the weeks after the election. Newly released findings in the Dominion trial reveal that most Fox News personalities either did not believe or seriously doubted those allegations even while reporting them or featuring guests like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani who espoused them.
The plaintiffs aim to prove that Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and others knew better but chose ratings and profit over the truth. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox and other media properties, arguably admitted as much in depositions. “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it, in hindsight,” he said.
Other quotes from Fox personalities were even more damning. Hannity said on November 11, 2020, that “Rudy [was] acting like an insane person.” On November 16, Carlson told his producer, “Sidney Powell is lying.” He also challenged her on-air to produce evidence. She didn’t.
This whole thing definitely damages the credibility of Fox News, though that’s different from Dominion or Smartmatic actually winning a defamation suit.
Your team here at The Patriot Post was always skeptical of the voting machine claims, and we generally steered clear of the story for that reason. In our estimation, chasing down what certainly seems to have been utterly false charges distracted too many people from the real fraud and rigging we began this article by recounting.
In any case, the lawsuit will play out in court, and that’s not even really the point here.
Aside from the aforementioned distractions from the real problems with election integrity, there’s the media angle itself. While Fox damaged its own credibility, its competitors hardly covered themselves in glory.
Those three outlets and every other one that’s part of the Democrat super PAC we call the Leftmedia spent years peddling fabricated and fake news about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election. We’ll illustrate by changing a couple of key words in the Times’s coverage of the Dominion case: “The people running the country’s [largest newspapers] knew [Mrs. Clinton’s] claims of [Russian collusion] in the [2016] election were false but [printed] them anyway in a reckless pursuit of ratings and profit.”
Both the Post and the Times use the terms “election falsehoods” in their headlines about Fox and Dominion. The same can be said of nearly every story they ran about the 2016 election.
They also spent years pushing false information about the coronavirus pandemic, from lockdowns to masking to vaccine effectiveness and mandates to where the whole Wuhan flu got started. They now routinely tell us that men are women simply because the man says so. (Unfortunately, Fox News does this too.) That’s gaslighting of the worst sort.
We could go on (and on and on), but you get the gist. The Times, the Post, and CNN are part of a cabal of Democrat propagandists. The Leftmedia peddles lies deliberately and always. Fox News was a little too slow to stop one for a few weeks.
“It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,” lamented Fox’s Bill Sammon.
What would it take for the mainstream media in America to honestly report the facts and the truth, regardless of which party was harmed or benefited? Fake news isn’t exactly a new problem, though. As Thomas Jefferson complained way back in 1802, “Newspapers … serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke.” Some things never change.
Douglas Andrews: The Pentagon’s ‘Stupid’ Wokeness Directives — As Joe Biden’s military bends over backward to accommodate transgenderism, the biggest casualties are morale and readiness.
Linda Moss Mines: Fleeing the Cruel Monster — In May 1775, some delegates harbored a hope for reconciliation, but that option seemed to be disappearing.
“American urbanites with their culinary desires and electric cars couldn’t survive without the rural folks who provide those things for them. Yet leftist city dwellers — a.k.a. Biden voters — continually express contempt for the supposedly backwards bigots in flyover country. It’s no wonder the call for divorce resonates with many on both sides. What hope is there for this marriage? … To answer our own question, it’s federalism.” —Nate Jackson
“We call classics ‘timeless’ because they are imbued with a quality of genius that transcends the fashions of their time and our own. Trying to constantly rewrite them to keep up with the latest trends, which may well seem idiotic in due course (fingers crossed), is a fool’s errand.” —Rich Lowry
“I disagree with Hillary [Clinton] that it takes a village to raise a child if that means we are able to farm out parental duties to the villagers. While neighbors and teachers and friends all play a role in forming a healthy and productive member of society, the first and most important people, the ones who are the alpha and the omega of all that amazing potential, are mom and dad.” —Christine Flowers
Re: The Left
“The Left may pay lip service to the classical liberal educational ideal of an equal playing field wherein ideas are allowed to be freely expressed and challenged with the trust that in so doing the truth will ultimately prevail. Yet conservatives need to wake up to the reality that this principle is far from being practiced, and in fact is being actively suppressed in the name of ‘justice’ and replaced with a woke ideology that rejects objective truth in favor of social justice narratives.” —Thomas Gallatin
“Stories of regret … are a big part of the reason that the Tavistock Center — the UK’s largest gender clinic — shut its doors. Tavistock had been employing the ‘gender affirmation’ method of dealing with gender-confused children for a decade. But instead of taking warning, gender clinics across these United States continue with their ideological and financially beneficial butchery of gender-confused minors.” —Emmy Griffin
Food for Thought
“Why do the trans activists always harass churches and not mosques?” —Tim Young
For the Record
“The developing world is entitled to much the same industrial growth that raised the West to the pinnacle of prosperity. Climate is not the crisis that hunger or political insecurity is. Economic disorder lies at the root of those greater, immediate threats. But Western money insists green ideology take priority. We in the West enjoy so much wealth and security that we can afford to worry about weather projections. The rest of the world does not have that luxury. Yet the liberal international order reflects our anxieties rather than other nations’ needs.” —Daniel McCarthy
“It’s interesting how the lab leak deniers are some of the most rabid climate change activists who spent a lot of their time policing misinformation on social media platforms.” —Ryan Maue
Delusions of Grandeur
“Dealing with climate change is one of the biggest things that people like me … will be remembered for after we’re gone.” —Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
The BIG Lies
“[Republicans] want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act — which is actually going to hurt the economy, which is actually going to increase … health prices, and it’s going to actually increase energy costs. Because that’s what the Inflation Reduction Act is supposed to do. And it’s going to … raise havoc on the deficit.” —White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
“It is so typical … for people like Donald Trump to do the bidding of special interests, cause harm to the American people — that’s what he did when he loosened railroad regulations — and then point the finger at someone else when something terrible happens.” —Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
“As my buddy from Delaware can tell you, when you’re involved in the civil rights movement as a kid in high school — I used to go down to the black church. I’d go to 7:30 mass; I’m a practicing Catholic. Then I’d go to 10 o’clock. And then we’d sit and plan what we’re going to do, in terms of deseg- — you think I’m joking; I’m not.” —Joe Biden
“In two years, I reduced the debt $1.7 billion [sic]. … The largest deficit reduction in American history.” —Joe Biden
“I want to make it clear I’m going raise some taxes. Many of you are billionaires out there. You’re going to stop paying at 3 percent.” —Joe Biden
Non Compos Mentis
“When I was at Walter Reed all that time, after a couple of craniotomies, I was lying there. And I had a nurse named Pearl Nelson, military. She’d come in and do things that I don’t think you learn … in nursing school. She’d whisper in my ear. I … couldn’t understand her, but she’d whisper, and she’d lean down. She’d actually breathe on me to make sure … there was a connection, a human connection. She even went home and brought back her pillow from her own bed because they … knew the one I had wasn’t comfortable.” —Joe Biden
Dumb & Dumber
“The country needs more workers, especially women, in order to deliver on the president’s bold agenda.” —Karine Jean-Pierre
“It’s not like we’re isolationist like we were becoming in the last administration. We are reaching out and saying, hey, we’re a global society.” —Jill Biden
“As far as folks who say, you know, ‘I’ve already paid my [student loan] debt,’ well, that happened prior to the pandemic.” —Education Secretary Miguel Cardona
And Last…
“The glorification of victimhood has convinced a whole generation of young people that the student debt they chose to incur for their own benefit is not theirs to repay.” —Congressman Dan Crenshaw
According to journalist Sy Hersh, the Biden Administration is getting no pushback on Ukraine from Congress or the Mainstream Media.
Sy Hersh’s name exploded in the news a month ago when he reported that the Biden gang sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Europe from Russia. This made sense on many levels and had been discussed on the War Room for example, but Hersh came out and said that this indeed was the case.
Hersh was interviewed recently and he discussed his reporting on this issue.
Overnight, Hersh shared a piece on his substack where he asked “Does it take a war?”
This line Hersh explained came from John F. Kennedy in the early years of his administration. Kennedy wanted to be a great President and to do that he thought that it might take a war to be listed in the group of great Presidents.
Here goes on to discuss how Kennedy began the build-up of US troops in South Vietnam in the early 1960s. This was the beginning of the war to stop the communist advancement into South Eastern Asia.
Hersh goes on to describe Biden’s actions in Ukraine. He says:
Our current president, and his foreign policy team, in their unwillingness to seek an immediate ceasefire in the war between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and a NATO-backed Ukraine, could be on the same boat.
The Biden Administration is feeling no pressure from Congress or the American mainstream media about its fervid political, economic, and political support for Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. But protests and public anxiety over the war are surging in Germany, along with polls showing dwindling public support for Biden’s policy. Last weekend there were noisy anti-war rallies in Berlin, with crowds estimated at 13,000 by the police and 50,000 by the protest organizers. A “Manifesto for Peace” calling on German officials to halt the flow of weapons to Ukraine attracted 650,000 signatures in two weeks.
The clock is ticking.
The media and Congress have ignored the insanity of the war in Ukraine. Why has there been no effort to come to a peace deal? Does Biden know no matter what he does, he will always be the worst on the list of worst American Presidents?
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz questions Attorney General Merrick Garland about the Department of Justice’s treatment of pro-life activists – Via Wednesday’s “John Bachman Now.” “Why do you send two dozen agents in body armor to arrest a sidewalk counselor who happens to be pro-life, but you don’t devote resources to prosecute people who are violently fire-bombing crisis pregnancy centers?”
The delicate matter of where the Ukrainian war money is going must be kept beyond reproach in the eyes of the public, lest the legacy of shady business dealings, bribery, and money laundering reach the light of day.
Judicial Watch President @TomFitton appeared at CPAC 2021 to discuss our work fighting waste, fraud, & abuse in Washington DC and elsewhere around America.
Scripture teaches that human leadership is ordained by God. So what does He do when authorities abuse their power over His people? Hear what happened when a top official plotted to destroy the Jewish population. Listen to Truth For Life with Alistair Begg.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 