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
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
TITUS 3:7
Every human being is in a state of passing from what he was to what he is to be—and this is as true of the Christian as of every other person.
The new birth does not produce the finished product. The new thing that is born of God is as far from completeness as the new baby born into this world an hour ago.
That new human being, the moment he is born, is placed in the hands of powerful molding forces that go far to determine whether he shall be an upright citizen or a criminal. The one hope for him is that he can later choose which forces shall shape him, and by the exercise of his own power of choice he can place himself in the right hands.
It is not otherwise with the Christian. He can fashion himself by placing himself in the hands first of the supreme Artist, God, and then by subjecting himself to such holy influences and such formative powers as shall make him into a man of God.
Or he may foolishly trust himself to unworthy hands and become at last a misshapen and inartistic vessel, of little use to mankind and a poor example of the skill of the heavenly Potter.
The wise Christian will take advantage of every proper means of grace: he has but to cooperate with God in embracing the good. God Himself will do the rest!1
It is painful to remember that, in a certain degree, this accusation may be laid at the door of believers, who too often are in a measure spiritually insensible. We may well bewail ourselves that we do not hear the voice of God as we ought, “Yea, thou heardest not.” There are gentle motions of the Holy Spirit in the soul which are unheeded by us: there are whisperings of divine command and of heavenly love which are alike unobserved by our leaden intellects. Alas! we have been carelessly ignorant—“Yea, thou knewest not.” There are matters within which we ought to have seen, corruptions which have made headway unnoticed; sweet affections which are being blighted like flowers in the frost, untended by us; glimpses of the divine face which might be perceived if we did not wall up the windows of our soul. But we “have not known.” As we think of it we are humbled in the deepest self-abasement. How must we adore the grace of God as we learn from the context that all this folly and ignorance, on our part, was foreknown by God, and, notwithstanding that foreknowledge, he yet has been pleased to deal with us in a way of mercy! Admire the marvellous sovereign grace which could have chosen us in the sight of all this! Wonder at the price that was paid for us when Christ knew what we should be! He who hung upon the cross foresaw us as unbelieving, backsliding, cold of heart, indifferent, careless, lax in prayer, and yet he said, “I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour … Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life!” O redemption, how wondrously resplendent dost thou shine when we think how black we are! O Holy Spirit, give us henceforth the hearing ear, the understanding heart!1
WE are generally too fond of talking, and are not always careful as to what we say; let us hear attentively what the Scriptures have to say of unholy tongues.
James 3
1 My brethren, be not many masters (or teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (Men are too ready to set up for teachers and censors, but if they knew the increased responsibility of the position they would prefer to be learners.)
2 For in many things we offend all (and this should make us slow to assume leadership). If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.
3–5 Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. (It walks through the earth, attacking the best of men, and even daring to assail heaven itself.) Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! (If it be fire from heaven it brings a Pentecost; if fire from hell it makes a Pandemonium.)
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity (not a nation, or a city of sin, but a whole world of evil): so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. (Stella says an unruly tongue is worse than the fire of hell, for that torments only the wicked; but this afflicts all, both bad and good.)
7, 8 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. (God alone can subdue it, and teach it to be silent, or to speak to his glory. This lion cannot be bound even by a Samson, but the Lord can transform it to a lamb.)
9, 10 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Inconsistent language is monstrous. Our speech should be all of a piece, and altogether holiness unto the Lord. Is it so?
11, 12 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. (Holiness, meekness, and gentleness in conversation are the best signs of a really instructed mind. God alone by his Holy Spirit can give us this wisdom.)
14–18 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Old Thomas Adams has wittily said: “It is a singular member. God hath given man two ears; one to hear instructions of human knowledge, the other to hearken to his divine precepts. Two eyes, that with the one he might see to his own way, with the other pity and commiserate his distressed brethren. Two hands, that with the one he might work for his own living, with the other relieve his brother’s wants. Two feet, one to walk on common days to his ordinary labour, the other, on sacred days to frequent the congregation of saints. But among all, he hath given him but one tongue; which may instruct him to hear twice so much as he speaks; and to walk and work twice as much as he talks.”
Nahum 1:1 — Nahum means “comforter,” but there is little comfort in this book. We’ve jumped ahead 150 years since the Book of Jonah. The revival faded away, and the people forgot when they repented. J. Vernon McGee asks why Jonah was sent personally to Nineveh, but Nahum just sent them a letter? “Why doesn’t Nahum go? Because they have already had the light, and they’ve rejected it.”
Nahum 1:3 — We’re seeing the need for forensic justification outlined here. Jesus didn’t come to just make good people better or poor people rich; He came to set guilty people free! God cannot let guilty people go free unless there is a substitute.
John MacArthur sees the qualities of the LORD in this chapter: “He is a God of inflexible justice, irresistible power, and infinite mercy.”
Nahum 1:7 — How can a good God be furious like fire (Nahum 1:6)?
“God has the absolute right to rule and authority over His creatures because He is God. He makes the laws, He determines the standard and He judges in terms of the results. He created everything at His own pleasure. He didn’t have to therefore He has the total and the perfect right to set the principles by which His creation must function.”
Nahum 1:11 — Contrast the wicked counsellor with the Wonderful Counsellor of Isaiah 9:6. A wicked counsellor plots evil against his Creator, a Wonderful Counsellor is the Creator reconnecting with His creation.
Nahum 1:15 — We’ll notice parallels between Nahum and Isaiah. Nahum 1:15 excerpts Isaiah 52:7. Nahum 3:5 references Isaiah 47:3.
Nahum 2:4 — John MacArthur jokes that this verse may be talking about Los Angeles traffic!
Nahum 3:4 — Notice the list of sins. The 7th Commandment and witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:10). In Nahum 1:14, we’ve seen the Second Commandment; in Nahum 3:1, we’ve seen the Sixth, Ninth, and Eighth Commandment. At the end of the chapter, we see the rhetorical question, “Upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?”
Revelation 8:7 — We saw in Nahum that the LORD held all nations accountable for His laws; now we see Him judging all nations for their sins. The Seven Seals now lead to the Seven Angels. Notice the universal nature of the judgment:
First Angel – 1/3 of trees burnt up
Second Angel – 1/3 of sea becomes blood
Third Angel – 1/3 of rivers became bitter
Fourth Angel – 1/3 of sun became dark
Psalm 136:1 — We’re on the second lap through the Psalms – remember Psalm 136? While we’re on this lap, notice again the universal character of God:
God of gods, Lord of lords, that alone doeth great wonders (Psalm 136:2-4)
Made the heavens, the earth, the sun and the moon (Psalm 136:5-9)
Divided the Red Sea and led Israel through it (Psalm 136:13-14)
Giveth food to all flesh (Psalm 136:25)
Our God is great! Let’s thank the God of heaven (Psalm 136:26)!
Proverbs 30:9 — The dangers of poverty and riches. Notice the conclusion: stealing is not just a violation of the 8th Commandment but of the 3rd Commandment as well. Someone that claims to follow God but disobeys Him, takes the name of their God in vain.
Share how reading through the Bible has been a blessing to you! E-mail us at 2018bible@vcyamerica.org or call and leave a message at 414-885-5370.
He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.Psalm 145:19
His own Spirit has wrought this desire in us, and therefore He will answer it. It is His own life within which prompts the cry, and therefore He will hear it. Those who fear Him are men under the holiest influence, and, therefore, their desire is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Like Daniel, they are men of desires, and the Lord will cause them to realize their aspirations.
Holy desires are grace in the blade, and the heavenly Husbandman will cultivate them till they come to the full corn in the ear. God-fearing men desire to be holy, to be useful, to be a blessing to others, and so to honor their Lord. They desire supplies for their need, help under burdens, guidance in perplexity, deliverance in distress; and sometimes this desire is so strong and their case so pressing that they cry out in agony like little children in pain, and then the Lord works most comprehensively and does all that is needful according to this Word—”and will save them.”
Yes, if we fear God, we have nothing else to fear; if we cry to the Lord, our salvation is certain.
Let the reader lay this text on his tongue and keep it in his mouth all the day, and it will be to him as “a wafer made with honey.”
Description:The Christian life is more costly than we realize and more precious than we know. Today, R.C. Sproul continues his exposition of the gospel of Mark to help us soberly assess the price of following our crucified King.
One human attribute, above all others, leads to human flourishing at the highest level. How is this attribute encouraged under a Christian worldview? How is this attribute an evidence for the truth of Christianity?
To see more interview videos with J. Warner Wallace, visit the YouTube playlist.
For more information about how to flourish based on secular research and the ancient wisdom of the bible, please read The Truth in True Crime; What Investigating Death Teaches Us About the Meaning of Life. This book teaches readers 15 rues for life, recognized in murder investigations. It also makes a case for the reliability of the Bible from Biblical anthropology. The book is accompanied by a sixteen-session Truth in True Crime Video Series (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.
“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims.
In his prologue, Luke says,
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).
The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.
The Most Popular Objection
Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.
Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e. biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.
A Wrench in the Works
Consider this popular argument against objectivity:
To be objective one must be free from bias.
No one is free from bias.
Therefore, no one is objective.
This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e. is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ mean other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector in this case is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water, because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)
What do you mean “Objective”?
This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:
“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).
He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.
This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively, it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary’.) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,
“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2019] 150).
The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and being arise out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made up principle. In fact it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.
Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective )reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.
The Benefit of Bias
Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.
When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.
(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)
Recommended Resources:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
When was the last time you considered your spiritual gifts? When you think about them, are you quick to recognize they were given to you by Christ for the edification, equipping and encouragement of the church, or were you tempted to think you somehow earned your spiritual gifts by way of education or experience? Did you recognize your spiritual gifts have to do with Christian unity, or are you tempted to covet another’s gift? How you answered these questions is important. The Bible teaches us that we’ve received spiritual gifts in order to benefit others in the body of Christ.
In his letter to the church in Ephesus the apostle Paul makes it clear that Christ “gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:7-8). Paul alludes to Psalm 68, particularly verses 7-18 that describe God’s victorious march to His temple in Jerusalem. This first major movement of the psalm comes to a crescendo when God ascends on high “receiving gifts among men” (v. 18). Significantly, Paul switches the imagery of God receiving gifts to Christ giving gifts.
Christ “gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12). The apostles were men who had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry, and who gave us the New Testament. Paul is included as an apostle because the Lord had met him on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-19). The New Testament prophets were men who acted out and spoke the word of the Lord (see Acts 11:28; 21:1-14). Evangelists share the good news of the gospel (see Acts 21:8). And shepherds and teachers faithfully lead the church of God and proclaim the word of God (1 Pet. 5:1-4).
“If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” —John Adams (1776)
Douglas Andrews, Thomas Gallatin, & Jordan Candler
Government & Politics
FBI informant pleads guilty to lying about Biden: Former FBI source Alexander Smirnov has pleaded guilty “to causing the creation of a false and fictitious record in a federal investigation” in addition to a charge of tax evasion in an “alleged” bribery scandal involving the Biden Crime Family. The timing of this plea is curious, as Joe Biden is on his way out the door and desperately needs any news that might offset the growing perception that he’s the worst president in American history. As The Washington Post reports: “Smirnov was arrested in February on allegations that he falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016. Smirnov told his handler that an executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,’ according to court documents.” Interestingly, the pro-Biden WaPo doesn’t mention the Big Guy’s Ukrainian quid pro quo or his son’s “money for nothing” gig on Burisma’s board, for which he was paid lavishly despite not knowing anything about energy.
Drug lords, Ponzi schemers, and corrupt officials: Meet Joe Biden’s clemency recipients (Washington Free Beacon) | Satire: Biden issues pardon to the Dark Lord Sauron (Babylon Bee)
Did Liz Cheney know about the FBI’s J6 informants? A report from the Biden DOJ’s inspector general has finally confirmed what we knew long ago: The Capitol grounds were teeming with FBI informants on January 6, 2021. But where does Republican Senator Mike Lee go to get his reputation back? Lee was one of a handful of GOP senators who wondered about the FBI’s involvement in the events of J6, and for it, he was smeared by Trump-hating former Congresswoman Liz Cheney as a “nutball conspiracy theorist.” As it turns out, Cheney is either a nutball conspiracy theorist herself for suggesting that the FBI was nowhere to be found on the Capitol grounds that day, or she’s simply a lying liar. “It’s very strange that [Cheney] would call people who were raising these questions nut jobs, nut cases … when she herself, a member of this January 6 investigative committee, had access to a lot of information,” Lee noted. “Did she know, in fact, that what Mr. Horowitz put out recently in the inspector general report? Did she know this already? If so, why was she up there, calling into question the sanity of anyone … raising the question?”
Humor: Ray Epps announces resignation from FBI (Babylon Bee)
Trump’s positive approval has even Romney feeling charitable: For the first time ever, Donald Trump has a net positive rating. The RealClearPolling average now shows Trump with a plus-two point rating, a significant improvement over his net negative 12.8 back in June. Trump is now enjoying a honeymoon period he never experienced during his first term. Even some of his critics are changing their tune, as Senator Mitt Romney rejected continued efforts to oppose Trump. “Donald Trump won. He won overwhelmingly. He said what he was going to do, and that’s what he’s doing,” the departing Utah senator said. “I mean, people are saying, ‘Oh, I don’t like this appointment or this policy that he’s talking about. But those are the things he said he was going to do when he ran. So you can’t complain about someone who does what he said he was going to do. And I agree with him on a lot of policy fronts. I disagree with him on some things. But it’s like, OK, give him a chance to do what he said he’s going to do and see how it works out.” It appears that Trump is still winning.
Biden’s message to Kamala: In a speech at the DNC’s holiday get-together in Washington, DC, over the weekend, Joe Biden addressed Kamala Harris. After bizarrely asserting that he knew what he was doing when he picked her as his vice president, Biden turned to Harris directly and said, “You’re not going anywhere, kid, because we’re not going to let you go.” Harris’s loss to Donald Trump sent Democrats into a world of finger-pointing, denial, and some introspection, so the notion that Harris will remain a significant player in their future election strategy is anything but certain. Harris’s political prospects seem most likely to include a run for governor of California, which would effectively take a 2028 presidential run off the table. Biden’s message, likely intended as a show of support, may prove to be accidentally prescient in that her political future may be done; she’s really not going anywhere because she’s come to the end of her political road.
DA Bragg wants judge not to dismiss conviction but treat Trump as dead: Clearly unbowed and unbroken despite last week’s resounding acquittal of New York City subway hero Daniel Penny, woke Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is pressing ahead in his targeting of Donald Trump — so much so that he’s asking a deeply conflicted Trump-hating judge to entertain a wildly exotic legal maneuver to keep alive a dubious hush-money felony conviction of the president-elect. As The Washington Times reports, “In an 82-page filing last week, Mr. Bragg urged New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to postpone proceedings until Mr. Trump leaves office in 2029 or use the process of abatement, treating the defendant as though he had died, to ensure the hush money conviction sticks.” As Cal-Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues, Bragg’s suggestion of abatement to keep the conviction hanging over Trump’s head is “another sad example of how this prosecution not only has made-it-up as it went along, but also runs contrary to fundamental principles of law and justice.”
Security
Under Biden, docket for deportation explodes to 6.3 million (Center Square)
Trump considering preemptive strikes on Iranian nuke facilities (Hot Air)
Reports of mass graves tied to Assad found after regime toppled (Newsweek)
Culture
Biden’s Forest Service wasted hundreds of thousands on DEI workshops: How much taxpayer money has the federal government wasted on diversity, equity, and inclusion? Well, under Joe Biden, the U.S. Forest Service expended over $250,000 on contractors to subject agency employees to DEI workshops. One particular contractor, J. Mattox and Associates, advertises its DEI diversity circles as “safe, supportive space to promote open and respectful exchange of personal stories, and feelings about racial inequalities and social injustice to achieve shared understanding, bridge differences, and strengthen [a] sense of community.” White employees are asked to “explore a range of actions and techniques” to help them act “as allies with people of color to be supportive and take action to combat social injustice and racial inequities in the workplace and the community.” Meanwhile, a 2023 report from the Agriculture Department Office of Inspector General found that the Forest Service had a $5 billion maintenance backlog.
A child “trans” victim of double mastectomy sues: Gender-“affirming” surgery is deeply disquieting, especially for children. As the Supreme Court weighs whether Tennessee can legally ban such mutilations, consider the case of a “fast-tracked” victim of the trans cultists. Clementine Breen, who’s now a 20-year-old college student, was given puberty blockers at age 12, male hormones at 13, and — good heavens — a double mastectomy at 14. According to the lawsuit, “Around the age of 11 or 12, likely due at least in part to the sexual abuse she experienced as a young child, Clementine began struggling with the thought of developing into a woman and began to believe that life would be easier if she were a boy.” That’s when her parents entrusted her to “the experts” at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles. But their “treatments” didn’t help. “Breen spiraled into depression, psychosis, and attempted suicide,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes. “Eventually, with new mental-health care and a ‘natural desistance of gender dysphoria as one progresses into adulthood,’ she realized she wasn’t transgender.” Yet the damage to her body had been done. Let’s hope this lawsuit is but the first in a tidal wave of similar legal actions.
Sick: Luigi Mangione GiveSendGo defense fund crosses $100,000 (Breitbart)
Texas sues New York doctor for telemedicine prescription of abortion pills (NBC News)
1 in 20 Canadian deaths were from medically-assisted suicide in 2023 (PM)
Vatican removes Palestinian keffiyeh Nativity scene amid backlash (Christian Post)
Elton John calls marijuana legalization “one of the greatest mistakes of all time” (Washington Examiner)
Climate
We’re not going to be burned alive by the sun monster: All those climate models predicting a catastrophic rise in global temperatures that will melt the polar ice caps and boil the oceans all because we use fossil fuels have repeatedly failed. As skeptics have repeatedly noted, these climate models fail because they don’t account for the myriad of factors that contribute to and impact the global climate. Recently, scientists uncovered a previously unaccounted-for compound known as methanethiol, a naturally produced emission from marine life. Methanethoil acts to reflect the sun’s rays, sending radiation back into space, thereby cooling the planet. This naturally produced marine life emission has a bigger impact on global temperatures than was realized. Go figure — when it comes to our limited scientific knowledge and understanding of the world we inhabit, humility rather than hubris is a wiser way of going about things.
Misc.
Trump vows to “eliminate Daylight Saving Time” (Daily Wire)
Trump eyes privatizing U.S. Postal Service, citing financial losses (Washington Post)
Nancy Pelosi “on the mend” after hip replacement surgery in Germany (The Hill)
ABC News agreed to pay $15 million toward Donald Trump’s future presidential library, along with $1 million in Trump’s attorney fees in a defamation settlement over a smear made by the network’s $25 million man, George Stephanopoulos, earlier this year. ABC and Stephanopoulos expressed non-specific “regret” for his sin, and he proceeded to deplatform himself from X.
He didn’t mention the settlement in his Sunday show yesterday, instead focusing on drones in New Jersey. Nevertheless, the settlement was yet more good news for Trump and deliciously lousy news for a contemptible Leftmedia outlet and personality.
Stephanopoulos’s allegation occurred in a March interview with Representative Nancy Mace. She was raped at age 16, so Stephanopoulos demanded to know how, as a rape victim, she could support Trump, who he claimed had been found “liable for rape” in a New York civil case.
Stephanopoulos, you may recall, wasn’t disturbed by working for Bill Clinton, whose serial sexual predation is well-known. Worse, the diminutive political hack was instrumental in trying to destroy the character and reputation of Clinton’s accusers. Defaming them, you might say.
Mace argued that Stephanopoulos was “trying to shame” her with her own rape to score political points. That’s true and despicable, but the real trouble for Stephanopoulos is that his claim wasn’t legally or factually accurate. And he repeated it 10 times in the interview just to make sure viewers at home understood one thing: Trump is a rapist.
That bogus claim is often how rabid leftists “rebut” others on social media, and they believe it because of Leftmedia hacks like Stephanopoulos. He even continued to defend himself in public, telling Trump-deranged “comedian” Stephen Colbert, “Trump sued me because I used the word ‘rape,’ even though a judge said that’s in fact what did happen.”
The Leftmedia spent the last nine years saying a lot of untrue and absurd things about Trump, dividing the country with over-the-top hatred for the man on one side and fueling dedication to him on the other. So, in that sense, $15 million was a bargain for ABC, given the widespread damage to Trump’s reputation.
As the New York Post editorial board put it, “Corporations like ABC and its parent company, Disney, don’t make such payouts unless they think they’re avoiding far worse if the case actually moves ahead.” Indeed, Stephanopoulos and other network officials strategically avoided depositions, indicating they avoided more humiliation by simply settling. They’re not admitting guilt; they’re avoiding discovery.
However.
Trump isn’t exactly as pure as the wind-driven snow, and this settlement is another reminder of that frustrating fact. In May 2023, Trump lost a defamation case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll. A Manhattan jury found Trump liable for more likely than not sexually abusing — distinct from raping — Carroll at a Fifth Avenue department store on an indeterminate date sometime around 1996 and then for defaming her after she finally told her story 23 years later in a 2019 memoir that needed selling. Stephanopoulos is correct in one respect. Judge Lewis Kaplan later tried to have it both ways by saying that even though Carroll didn’t prove rape “within the meaning of the New York Penal Law,” that “does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” His statement was a grossly politicized reinterpretation of the jury’s finding.
Trump was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million, after which he said mean things about her again, so she sued again, winning an eye-popping $83 million the second time. Yes, that was ridiculous lawfare against the Bad Orange Man, but if he could just shut his yap once in a while…
For the record, I don’t believe Carroll’s story. At “best,” it’s grossly embellished, and it likely didn’t happen at all. The seed of doubt in my mind is that Trump was famously caught on audio tape bragging about doing almost exactly what Carroll accused him of doing. He claimed that was just locker room talk, and maybe it was. Carroll surely knew about it when she first came forward.
Trump also settled with an adult film star who goes by the name Stormy Daniels for an alleged tryst in 2006. Former Playboy model Karen McDougal likewise claimed an affair with Trump during roughly the same time frame. If so, he cheated on all three of his wives, and that makes what he says about his sex life less than believable, to put it charitably.
As I wrote in 2018, “Conservatives and Christians must deal honestly and forthrightly with the fact that a dishonest and immoral man is the Republican Party’s standard-bearer.” The party and the movement have done this by letting go of the notion that presidents should be of upstanding moral character. Maybe that quaint idea died with Bill Clinton’s Senate acquittal.
None of that excuses what Stephanopoulos or any of the rest of the lying, defaming Leftmedia did. In craven service to the Democrat Party, these propagandists routinely lie about most Republicans — especially Trump. They take a nugget of information and blow it completely out of proportion to the point that it is no longer true. Then, they have the gall to establish “fact-checking” enforcement arms to censor conservative voices for departing from The Narrative.
Chipping away at this Democrat Media Industrial Complex will take time, but $15 million is a good start.
Douglas Andrews: The Democrats’ Civil War — Six weeks after being taken to the woodshed by Donald Trump, the Democrats are no closer to fixing what ails them.
Roger Helle: Go Along to Get Along — Do we have any public officials left who will stand for truth when it may not be popular?
Satire: Visit California: It’s America’s Future — It’s one of the top states in the nation for lots of things, like gas prices, traffic, and blackouts. Visit California and get a little glimpse into the future of any socialist nation.
“I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t, and that was wrong. And I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me.” —Crystal Mangum, the non-victim in the Duke lacrosse scandal
Non Compos Mentis
“For better or for worse, it’s not much of a ringing endorsement — and we all know which one Trump falls under. And let’s remember who else has been given this title in the past in the same category: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Vladimir Putin.” —”The View” co-host Joy Reid on Trump being named TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year
Demagogue
“I pray to God the president-elect throws away Project 2025.” —Joe Biden
Belly Laugh of the Day
“Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. That’s the FBI’s motto and it perfectly describes Director Wray. He’s served America faithfully, and I’m thankful for his leadership.” —Senator Amy Klobuchar
Political Futures
“Historically, presidential pardons were utilized by presidents to unify the nation, not to protect the president’s own from criminal activities. Unfortunately, Biden’s pardoning of his son Hunter has opened the floodgates for abuse by future presidents.” —Brian Mark Weber
“[Biden] will go down as the worst, most despicable president in the history of this country because no one has done more to damage this country and hurt American citizens.” —Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick
“Why do you think Elon Musk has become an icon to millions of people around the world? It’s not his inspiring speeches and good looks! He builds big things and in doing so reminds us who we are supposed to be: we are meant to reach for the stars, not into our neighbours’ pockets.” —Konstantin Kisin
“Millei won in Argentina because he promised to cut red tape, taxes, and bureaucrats with his chainsaw of freedom. Trump won in America because he promised to cut regulation, taxes, and waste. The British people, on the other hand, are very clear: they want higher taxes and more government spending.” —Konstantin Kisin
Re: The Left
“From the rise of antisemitism to, now, the murder of an insurance CEO, few Democrats seem capable of condemning violence without adding a ‘but.’ … We cannot give ourselves the permission structure or power to make exceptions to the very basic rule that killing another human is wrong.” —Erick Erickson
“There’s a clear ideological continuum between those who rationalize the shooting of a CEO and rationalize the murder and rape of Jews by Palestinian terrorists and rationalize the burning down of cities for ‘social justice.’” —David Harsanyi
“The First Amendment doesn’t automatically grant sainthood to the press. You’re allowed to think the press has performed terribly without ending the First Amendment. That’s freedom of speech.” —Tim Graham
And Last…
“We don’t need more abortion. We need more adults who take responsibility for their choices.” —Abby Johnson
Rap artist Sean Combs, aka P. Diddy, faces shocking accusations of abuse, trafficking, and potentially blackmailing Hollywood A-listers, raising questions over whether Combs acted in a similar capacity to famed banker Jeffrey Epstein.
Conservative group One Million Moms is warning parents about the film adaptation of the musical “Wicked,” saying it promotes witchcraft and encourages an LGBT agenda.
The Chosen set out to depict the life and ministry of Christ and his disciples in a television series. The creative license necessary for the series was going to initiate controversy, but the actual results have been a series that is not a faithful adaptation of Scripture, nor quality entertainment. The fifth season is set to debut next year, depicting Holy Week. In promotional material, The Chosen has showcased its misunderstanding of Judas, the betrayer of Christ.
In a behind-the-scenes video, Judas is depicted as a well-intentioned simpleton who won’t “get with the program” no matter how many people try to teach him. He simply needs to “take a chill pill.” Being well-intentioned yet dumb is a rather novel villainous archetype, and for good reason. A villain should have at least one of the following: intelligence, strength, or well-thought-out motivations. Judas could have been depicted as a zealot who grew increasingly disgruntled that Jesus was not seeking earthly power. This would have given Judas some impression of martial strength (recast required) and a logical motivation for betrayal. Instead, The Chosen depicts Judas as Jar Jar Binks breaking bad.
In The Chosen, Judas is shown to be a successful businessman who has “closed deals.” He’s worried about Jesus messing up his popularity and wants to impart advice on how to seize the opportunity. Judas is then made to feel useless when Jonathan Roumie’s Jesus rebuffs his advice.
Judas Has A Choice?
Jesus states that Judas has a choice to make as to whom we will serve, setting off a debate about free will and predestination. Yet these two ideas are often presented as a false dichotomy. Judas made the decision to steal, betray Jesus, and commit suicide. Yet God clearly foretold that this would happen, meaning that this betrayal was a fixed event as part of God’s plan, that Judas, although having a choice, lacked a will of his own that could defy God’s plan.
This was followed by some dreadful theology however.
Jesus Lost The Heart Of Judas?
The Chosen takes a clear theological position that Christ had Judas’s heart and lost it, in otherwords, Judas had salvation, walked away from it, and had the difficult decision to make on whether or not to come back to it.
The Bible does not affirm this wishy-washy view.
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
John 10:29-30 NASB1995
Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and no one can take His sheep.
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38-39
Paul specifically speaks to soteriology in Romans. The names of Christ’s beloved are written and sealed. If we could lose salvation we would lose salvation. But instead, Christ is merciful and so we work out our faith with fear and trembling.
In conclusion, by portraying Judas as a misguided individual rather than a figure driven by deeper motivations, the series has inadvertently diluted the gravity of his betrayal and its divine purpose. The emphasis on the idea that Judas had a choice but ultimately lost his salvation runs counter to biblical teachings about the permanence of God’s grace. Ultimately, while creative interpretations can offer new perspectives, they should remain rooted in the core tenets of faith that underscore the strength of Christ’s promise and the nature of redemption.
“How did political leaders not see the carnage BLM was causing? How could big business support this? They saw it and embraced it. Here is why. In 1963, Rep. Albert Herlong (D-Fla.) entered into Congress the 45 Goals of Communism to be achieved in the U.S.A. These goals read like a road map for the carnage caused in 2019-2020.”
(Kevin Downey JR – PJ Media) I remember reading in 2019 that then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, working with then-New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, who hated one another, decided it was a good idea to empty the prisons because there were “too many black men in prison” due to “systemic racism.” This struck me as a horrible idea, yet other left-leaning cities and states soon followed suit.
A year later in 2020, as BLM was burning our big, blue toilet towns to the ground in honor of a career criminal named George Floyd, it was also busy hoovering mad stacks from big corporations. I couldn’t understand why big business was paying the people torching our cities. While we watched the fiery but mostly peaceful protests across the nation, Democrat-run cities passed cashless bail laws to keep criminals on the streets. Clearly another horrendous decision, I thought. Can leftists be this stupid? View article →
President-Elect Donald J. Trump will address the media on Monday, December 16, 2024. Watch LIVE on RSBN starting at 10 a.m. EST. President Trump’s remarks are scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. EST.
How should your faith shape your political views? Dive into the biblical truths that guide our stance on government and politics. We’ll explore why our faith should inform our political actions and how to navigate the political landscape with a Christ-centered perspective. Don’t miss out on this insightful discussion that covers the role of government, the importance of being a good citizen, and the ultimate hope found in Jesus Christ.In this video, Pastor Nelson answers your question: How should a Christian view politics?
“How did political leaders not see the carnage BLM was causing? How could big business support this? They saw it and embraced it. Here is why. In 1963, Rep. Albert Herlong (D-Fla.) entered into Congress the 45 Goals of Communism to be achieved in the U.S.A. These goals read like a road map for the carnage caused in 2019-2020.”
Truth2Freedom's Blog 