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
We must aggravate* our sins and take notice of those things which make them more heinous in the sight of God and more dangerous to ourselves.
I bewail before you all my iniquities, all my transgressions, and all my sins. Leviticus 16:21(ESV)
The more knowledge we have of good and evil, the greater is our sin.
I have known my Master’s will but have not done it, and therefore deserve a severe beating. Luke 12:47(ESV)
I have known the way of the LORD and the justice of my God, and yet have broken the yoke and burst the bonds. Jeremiah 5:4-5(ESV)
I have known God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, and yet have not only done them, but given approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:32(ESV)
I have taught others, and yet have not taught myself; Romans 2:21(ESV) and while I profess to know God, I have denied him by my works. Titus 1:16(ESV)
The greater profession we have made of religion, the greater has been our sin.
I call myself after the holy city and stay myself on the God of Israel and confess his name, but not in truth and in righteousness. Isaiah 48:1-2(ESV) For I have dishonored that worthy name by which I have been called, James 2:23(ESV) and given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. 2 Samuel 12:14(ESV)
I have named the name of Christ, and yet have not departed from iniquity. 2 Timothy 2:19(ESV)
* The author means that we must look at our sins in the worst light, to see just how evil they are, taking into account the persons we have offended, the nature of the offense, the circumstances of our sin, etc. See The Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 150 and 151. Editor.
There are two problems related to the origin of the first living cell, on atheism:
The problem of getting the building blocks needed to create life – i.e. the amino acids
The problem of creating the functional sequences of amino acids and proteins that can support the minimal operations of a simple living cell
Normally, I concede the first problem and grant the atheist all the building blocks he needs. This is because step 2 is impossible. There is no way, on atheism, to form the sequences of amino acids that will fold up into proteins, and then to form the sequences of proteins that can be used to form everything else in the cell, including the DNA itself.
Today, let’s take a look at the problems with step 1.
The Miller-Urey experiments
The problem of getting the building blocks of life
Now you may have heard that some scientists managed to spark some gasses to generate most of the 20 amino acids found in living systems. These experiments are called the “Miller-Urey” experiments.
Miller’s experiment requires a reducing methane and ammonia atmosphere,11, 12 however geochemical evidence says the atmosphere was hydrogen, water, and carbon dioxide (non-reducing).15, 16 The only amino acid produced in a such an atmosphere is glycine (and only when the hydrogen content is unreasonably high), and could not form the necessary building blocks of life.11
Miller and Urey didn’t account for UV of molecular instability:
Not only would UV radiation destroy any molecules that were made, but their own short lifespans would also greatly limit their numbers. For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19).
Miller and Urey didn’t account for molecular oxygen:
We all have know ozone in the upper atmosphere protects life from harmful UV radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen which is the very gas that Stanley Miller-type experiments avoided, for it prevents the synthesis of organic molecules like the ones obtained from the experiments! Pre-biotic synthesis is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. The chemistry does not work if there is oxygen because the atmosphere would be non-reducing, but if there is no UV-light-blocking oxygen (i.e. ozone – O3) in the atmosphere, the amino acids would be quickly destroyed by extremely high amounts of UV light (which would have been 100 times stronger than today on the early earth).20, 21, 22 This radiation could destroy methane within a few tens of years,23 and atmospheric ammonia within 30,000 years.15
And there were three other problems too:
At best the processes would likely create a dilute “thin soup,”24 destroyed by meteorite impacts every 10 million years.20, 25 This severely limits the time available to create pre-biotic chemicals and allow for the OOL.
Chemically speaking, life uses only “left-handed” (“L”) amino acids and “right-handed” (“R)” genetic molecules. This is called “chirality,” and any account of the origin of life must somehow explain the origin of chirality. Nearly all chemical reactions produce “racemic” mixtures–mixtures with products that are 50% L and 50% R.
Two more problems are not mentioned in the article. A non-peptide bond anywhere in the chain will ruin the chain. You need around 200 amino acids to make a protein. If any of the bonds is not a peptide bond, the chain will not work in a living system. Additionally, the article does not mention the need for the experimenter to intervene in order to prevent interfering cross-reactions that would prevent the amino acids from forming.
Now keep in mind that even if you get the building blocks, you are left with the sequencing problem. Like the letters of the words in this blog post, the building blocks of life also need to be put in a meaningful sequence in order to do work in a living system – but that’s another topic for another day.
LORD’S DAY 11.What is your only comfort in life and in death?
That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,1 am not my own,2 but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,3 who with His precious blood4 has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil;5 and so preserves me,6 that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head;7 indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation.8 Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,9 and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.10
2. How many things are necessary for you to know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?
Three things: first, the greatness of my sin and misery;1 second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery;2 third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.3
Advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently allow for many exceptions to the rule of baptismal regeneration: people were justified differently during the Old Testament era, people were justified differently during part or all of Jesus’ time on earth, Cornelius and those with him who were justified before baptism were exceptions to the rule, and so on. Two of the exceptions they make involve supposed other forms of baptism, such as being baptized by blood if you die as a martyr before being water baptized or being baptized by desire if you intended to get water baptized, but died before the water baptism was carried out. Much can be said about the problems with such views. John 3:5, probably the passage most prominently cited in arguments for baptismal regeneration, appeals to Nicodemus’ knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures, which makes less sense if Jesus was referring to a means of justification different than that of the Old Testament era, and the passage says nothing about blood or desire. And see my post here about how unknown and contradicted baptism of blood and baptism of desire were among pre-Reformation sources. Baptism of blood was popular, but not universally accepted. Baptism of desire seems to have been initially absent, then became a minority view, then reached majority status hundreds of years into church history. That doesn’t sit well with what many advocates of baptismal regeneration say about how their church is the church of the earliest centuries of Christianity, how they passed down all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, how the alleged early unpopularity of justification apart from baptism supposedly is such strong evidence against that view of justification (compare that to the early unpopularity of baptism of desire), etc.
How do we best explain what happens with the unbaptized martyr or the catechumen who dies before being baptized, for example? Instead of proposing a baptism of blood or a baptism of desire, it makes more sense to conclude that they were justified through faith without baptism. The martyr gave his life for Christ because he was already regenerated. He had no need for being regenerated in a future baptism of water or blood. Similarly, the catechumen was going through the catechetical process because he was already regenerate. Both the martyr’s behavior and the catechumen’s make more sense if regeneration had already occurred. As I’ve said before, people like Abraham, the tax collector in Luke 18, and Cornelius aren’t exceptions to the rule. They are the rule. That’s why Paul cites Abraham as if he’s normative, Jesus speaks in Luke 18 as if what he’s describing is normative, Acts 11 and 15 refer back to the events of chapter 10 as if they involve the normal means of justification, etc. Similarly, the martyrs and catechumens under consideration aren’t exceptions as far as their regeneration and justification are concerned. They’re further evidence for the rule. The rule is justification apart from baptism. It’s the regeneration, faith, and justification the person already has that motivate the person to get baptized.
Part of what’s involved here is the principle of simplicity. We prefer the simplest explanation, all other things being equal. Dividing up history as advocates of baptismal regeneration do, with different means of justification during different periods, and proposing other forms of baptism (blood, desire) not suggested by Jesus and the apostles, among other complications introduced by advocates of baptismal regeneration, doesn’t provide the simplest explanation of the evidence.
The Apostle Paul’s anguish over the Jews’ rejection of Christ is escalated to a degree unparalleled in Scripture. In this sermon, R.C. Sproul addresses the devastating consequences for anyone who rejects Christ.
But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” (23:40–43)
The story of the penitent thief, found only in Luke’s account of the crucifixion, is one of the many ironies at Calvary. Jesus was being mocked because He could not save Himself, yet He saved others, including the thief, by not saving Himself. He was accused by the rulers of Israel of claiming to be a king, and hence a threat to the power and authority of Rome. They warned Pilate that He needed to be executed before He could lead a revolt. And yet the same people who claimed to be protecting Rome from Jesus mocked, scorned, and ridiculed Him as impotent and helpless. He was treated like a king in a sarcastically cruel, comedic jest, yet He is God’s true King. He was accused of blasphemy against God by those who blasphemed Him, the true God. Jesus, the innocent, righteous one, was executed by the guilty, turning justice on its head. He was cursed by His enemies, who hated Him, but cursed in an infinitely greater way by His Father, who loves Him. The One who gives life and is life, died that those who are dead might receive life. One such spiritually dead sinner was hanging on a cross next to Him. He had initially joined the others in reviling and blaspheming Christ (see the discussion of v. 39 above). But then God opened his heart to the truth and miraculously, powerfully, sovereignly, instantly granted him faith and eternal life. The people, the rulers, the Romans, even his fellow thief did not understand what was truly happening at Calvary, but this man suddenly perceived the truth clearly. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, he was rescued from spiritual darkness and death and given light and life. Like Paul on the road to Damascus, he perceived the truth through a divine miracle in his soul. Luke’s account of the conversion of this Jewish criminal presents three evidences that his heart was savingly transformed. They are true of all those in whom God does His work of salvation. First, he came to fear God and His judgment. In an instant this most wretched of men went from blaspheming and reviling Jesus, like the rest of those gathered around the cross, to rebuking his fellow thief for doing so. As noted above, both of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus initially reviled and blasphemed Him. But this man suddenly grew silent. While his body was enduring the trauma, agony, and unparalleled suffering of crucifixion, his mind became crystal clear. His perception of how Jesus should be treated was completely changed. He was appalled and horrified at how the Lord was being abused, as his words indicate. Sharply rebuking the other thief he said to him, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?” His sudden outburst must have startled and surprised the other criminal. But what the two of them had been saying about Jesus he now found repulsive and frightening. He confronted the tragic condition that only moments before had been his own. In a moment, he went from being part of it to being unable to comprehend it. He was convicted by the Holy Spirit that he was a violator of God’s law. By his own admission, his sentence from a human judge was fair and just, and he realized that the torment he was enduring for breaking the law was insignificant compared to what he could expect for his sin from the divine Judge. He was afraid, not of those who were destroying his body, but of God, who would destroy both his body and his soul in hell (Luke 12:4–5). It is characteristic for the unregenerate to have no fear of God (Rom. 3:18). But the conviction wrought by the power of the Spirit of God produces a holy fear of divine judgment. Convicted sinners cry out like the repentant tax collector in Luke 18:13, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” True salvation is not from material poverty or poor self-esteem, but from God’s wrath, justice, and judgment. Closely connected to fear of God’s judgment is the second evidence of a changed heart, a sense of sinfulness. The repentant thief’s further rebuke of the other malefactor reflects his acknowledgment of his own sinfulness. “We indeed are suffering justly,” he reminded him, “for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds.” Like the prodigal son in Christ’s parable (Luke 15:17–19), this man came to his senses and admitted that he was a sinner. He understood that justice operates in the world of men, but perfectly in God’s realm. Here is an example of the true convert who confesses his guilt and absolute spiritual bankruptcy. He recognizes that he has nothing to offer God, nothing to commend himself to Him. He knows that he needs mercy and grace to escape judgment and be forgiven, because he is an unworthy sinner, a crouching, cringing, cowering beggar mourning over his transgressions (Matt. 5:3–4). Martin Luther understood that truth. After his death, his friends found a scrap of paper in his pocket on which the great reformer had written in Latin and German, “Hoc est verum. Wir sind alle Bettler.” (“This is true. We are all beggars.”) The final evidence of the repentant thief’s divinely transformed heart was his belief in Jesus Christ. The story of his transformation moves from an assessment of his sinful condition to an assessment of the Savior’s character. When he said of Him, “This man has done nothing wrong,” he was confessing not merely the Lord’s innocence of any crime, but also His sinlessness. He then addressed Jesus directly as the Savior and humbly asked Him, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” This was nothing less than a plea for the forgiveness apart from which no one will enter God’s kingdom. He based his request on Christ’s prayer that God would forgive those who crucified Him, which gave him hope that he too might receive forgiveness. He expressed belief that Jesus is the Savior, since he would not have asked for entrance to the kingdom unless he believed Jesus was willing and able to provide it. His was the plea of a broken, penitent, unworthy sinner for grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Finally, he believed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. He acknowledged that the Lord would one day establish His kingdom, which was promised in the covenants God made with Abraham and David, and reiterated repeatedly to the prophets. Since no one survived crucifixion, he understood that Jesus would have to rise from the dead to do that. He probably knew that Jesus had power over death, since the news of His raising of Lazarus had spread throughout Jerusalem. He no doubt was aware that Daniel 12:2 promised that the saints would be raised and given a place of glory in the kingdom. His request was that Jesus would raise him and grant him entrance to that kingdom. The Lord’s reply was astonishing. He prefaced it with the word truly, because what He was about to say was hard to believe. That a cursed criminal, whom the Jews would view as unredeemable, would be promised entrance to God’s kingdom was an outrageous affront to their sensibilities. The promise that this redeemed sinner would be with Jesus in heaven that very day invalidates the Roman Catholic teaching regarding purgatory. It also eliminates any system of works-righteousness, since the penitent thief had neither the time nor the opportunity to perform enough good deeds to merit salvation. The wonderful promise that he would be with Jesus in Paradise (heaven; 2 Cor. 12:2; cf. Rev. 2:7 with 22:2, 14) speaks of his full reconciliation to God. He would not merely see Jesus from afar, he would be with Him. His restoration would be full and complete.
MacArthur, J. (2014). Luke 18–24 (pp. 385–388). Moody Publishers.
43. Jesus said to him, I solemnly declare to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
Eph. 3:20, 21 contains a most touchingly beautiful doxology, namely, “Now to him who is able to do infinitely more than all we ask or imagine, according to the power that is at work within us, to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever; Amen.” Note especially these words infinitely more than all we ask.
That too was what the penitent supplicant received: far more than he has asked for. Note the beauty and the comfort of Christ’s answer:
1. The man had asked for a blessing … in the remote future. He receives a promise pertaining to this very day. Jesus says, “Today.”
2. He had asked “to be remembered.” That was all he had dared to request. He receives the assurance, “Not only will I remember you; you will be with me; that is, in my immediate presence.”
3. “With me” where? Not in some mystical region of phantoms, nor in purgatory, but in Paradise. But what is meant by Paradise? Paradise is heaven. It is as simple as that. From my book The Bible on the Life Hereafter I quote the following:
“The fact that ‘heaven’ and ‘Paradise’ are simply different words that indicate the same place is clear from 2 Cor. 12; compare verses 2 and 4. Here we read that someone was caught up to ‘the third heaven.’ It may be assumed that the first heaven was that of the clouds, the second that of the stars, the third that of the redeemed. But we immediately notice that the man who, according to verse 2, was said to have been caught up to heaven, was caught up to paradise according to verse 4. This certainly indicates that heaven and paradise are the same place and not two different places.”
Rev. 2:7 (“the tree of life which is in the paradise of God”) leads to the same conclusion, for also in the book of Revelation paradise is definitely another term for heaven. We read that “the tree of life” is in the paradise of God (Rev. 2:7), and that tree of life is in chapter 22 associated with “the holy city” (see verses 14, 19; also Rev. 21:1, 2).[1]
[1] Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Vol. 11, pp. 1032–1033). Baker Book House.
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.Matthew 26:33
“Why,” cries one, “this is no promise of God.” Just so, but it was a promise of man, and therefore it came to nothing. Peter thought that he was saying what he should assuredly carry out; but a promise which has no better foundation than a human resolve will fall to the ground. No sooner did temptations arise than Peter denied his Master and used oaths to confirm his denial.
What is man’s word? An earthen pot broken with a stroke. What is your own resolve? A blossom, which, with God’s care, may come to fruit, but which, left to itself, will fall to the ground with the first wind that moves the bough.
On man’s word hang only what it will bear.
On thine own resolve depend not at all.
On the promise of thy God hang time and eternity, this world and the next, thine all and the all of all thy beloved ones.
This volume is a checkbook for believers, and this page is meant as a warning as to what bank they draw upon and whose signature they accept. Rely upon Jesus without limit. Trust not thyself nor any born of woman, beyond due bounds; but trust thou only and wholly in the Lord.
That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,1 am not my own,2 but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,3 who with His precious blood4 has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil;5 and so preserves me,6 that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head;7 indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation.8 Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,9 and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.10
2. How many things are necessary for you to know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?
Three things: first, the greatness of my sin and misery;1 second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery;2 third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.3
“The Lord is my shepherd.” What condescension is this, that the Infinite Lord assumes towards his people the office and character of a Shepherd! It should be the subject of grateful admiration that the great God allows himself to be compared to anything which will set forth his great love and care for his own people. David had himself been a keeper of sheep, and understood both the needs of the sheep and the many cares of a shepherd. He compares himself to a creature weak, defenceless, and foolish, and he takes God to be his Provider, Preserver, Director, and, indeed, his everything. No man has a right to consider himself the Lord’s sheep unless his nature has been renewed, for the scriptural description of unconverted men does not picture them as sheep, but as wolves or goats. A sheep is an object of property, not a wild animal; its owner sets great store by it, and frequently it is bought with a great price. It is well to know, as certainly as David did, that we belong to the Lord. There is a noble tone of confidence about this sentence. There is no “if” nor “but,” nor even “I hope so;” but he says, “The Lord is my shepherd.” We must cultivate the spirit of assured dependence upon our heavenly Father. The sweetest word of the whole is that monosyllable, “My.” He does not say, “The Lord is the shepherd of the world at large, and leadeth forth the multitude as his flock,” but “The Lord is my shepherd;” if he be a Shepherd to no one else, he is a Shepherd to me; he cares for me, watches over me, and preserves me. The words are in the present tense. Whatever be the believer’s position, he is even now under the pastoral care of Jehovah. The next words are a sort of inference from the first statement—they are sententious and positive—“I shall not want.” I might want otherwise, but when the Lord is my Shepherd he is able to supply my needs, and he is certainly willing to do so, for his heart is full of love, and therefore “I shall not want.” I shall not lack for temporal things. Does he not feed the ravens, and cause the lilies to grow? How, then, can he leave his children to starve? I shall not want for spirituals, I know that his grace will be sufficient for me. Resting in him he will say to me, “As thy day so shall thy strength be.” I may not possess all that I wish for, but “I shall not want.” Others, far wealthier and wiser than I, may want, but I shall not.” “The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.” It is not only “I do not want,” but “I shall not want.” Come what may, if famine should devastate the land, or calamity destroy the city, “I shall not want.” Old age with its feebleness shall not bring me any lack, and even death with its gloom shall not find me destitute. I have all things and abound; not because I have a good store of money in the bank, not because I have skill and wit with which to win my bread, but because “The Lord is my Shepherd.” The wicked always want, but the righteous never; a sinner’s heart is far from satisfaction, but a gracious spirit dwells in the palace of content.
“He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.” The Christian life has two elements in it, the contemplative and the active, and both of these are richly provided for. First, the contemplative, “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.” What are these “green pastures” but the Scriptures of truth—always fresh, always rich, and never exhausted? There is no fear of biting the bare ground where the grass is long enough for the flock to lie down in it. Sweet and full are the doctrines of the gospel; fit food for souls, as tender grass is natural nutriment for sheep. When by faith we are enabled to find rest in the promises, we are like the sheep that lie down in the midst of the pasture; we find at the same moment both provender and peace, rest and refreshment, serenity and satisfaction. But observe: “He maketh me to lie down.” It is the Lord who graciously enables us to perceive the preciousness of his truth, and to feed upon it. How grateful ought we to be for the power to appropriate the promises! There are some distracted souls who would give worlds if they could but do this. They know the blessedness of it, but they cannot say that this blessedness is theirs. They know the “green pastures,” but they are not made to “lie down” in them. Those believers who have for years enjoyed a “full assurance of faith” should greatly bless their gracious God. The second part of a vigorous Christian’s life consists in gracious activity. We not only think, but we act. We are not always lying down to feed, but are journeying onward toward perfection; hence we read, “he leadeth me beside the still waters.” What are these “still waters” but the influences and graces of his blessed Spirit? His Spirit attends us in various operations, like waters—in the plural—to cleanse, to refresh, to fertilise, to cherish. They are “still waters,” for the Holy Ghost loves peace, and sounds no trumpet of ostentation in his operations. He may flow into our soul, but not into our neighbour’s, and therefore our neighbour may not perceive the divine presence; and though the blessed Spirit may be pouring his floods into one heart, yet he that sitteth next to the favoured one may know nothing of it. “In sacred silence of the mind My heaven, and there my God I find.”
Still waters run deep. Nothing more noisy than an empty drum. That silence is golden indeed in which the Holy Spirit meets with the souls of his saints. Not to raging waves of strife, but to peaceful streams of holy love does the Spirit of God conduct the chosen sheep. He is a dove, not an eagle; the dew, not the hurricane. Our Lord leads us beside these “still waters;” we could not go there of ourselves, we need his guidance, therefore is it said, “he leadeth me.” He does not drive us. Moses drives us by the law, but Jesus leads us by his example, and the gentle drawings of his love.
“He restoreth my soul.” When the soul grows sorrowful he revives it; when it is sinful he sanctifies it; when it is weak he strengthens it. “He” does it. His ministers could not do it if he did not. His Word would not avail by itself. “He restoreth my soul.” Are any of us low in grace? Do we feel that our spirituality is at its lowest ebb? He who turns the ebb into the flood can soon restore our soul. Pray to him, then, for the blessing—“Restore thou me, thou Shepherd of my soul!” “He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.” The Christian delights to be obedient, but it is the obedience of love, to which he is constrained by the example of his Master. “He leadeth me.” The Christian is not obedient to some commandments and neglectful of others; he does not pick and choose, but yields to all. Observe, that the plural is used—“the paths of righteousness.” Whatever God may give us to do we would do it, led by his love. Some Christians overlook the blessing of sanctification, and yet to a thoroughly renewed heart this is one of the sweetest gifts of the covenant. If we could be saved from wrath, and yet remain unregenerate, impenitent sinners, we should not be saved as we desire, for we mainly and chiefly pant to be saved from sin and led in the way of holiness. All this is done out of pure free grace; “for his name’s sake.” It is to the honour of our great Shepherd that we should be a holy people, walking in the narrow way of righteousness. If we be so led and guided we must not fail to adore our heavenly Shepherd’s care.
Spurgeon, C. H. (n.d.). The treasury of David: Psalms 1-26 (Vol. 1, pp. 353–355). Marshall Brothers.
The Shepherd’s Provision of Rest (23:1–3)
23:1–3. This psalm begins with its subject, The LORD … my shepherd, then throughout the psalm describes His qualities and relationship with those under His care. Although speaking in terms of sheep, the actual subject of this psalm is the people of Israel (and by application all who love the Lord). This literary image is used in Ps 95:7 and Ps 100 as well. David began by describing how God fully provides for the needs of His sheep: (1) I shall not want, because He will supply the needs of those under His care (cf. Ps 34:9; Mt 6:25–34); (2) makes me lie down in green pastures, providing a safe place to rest and eat (cf. Is 14:30; Jr 33:12–13; Zph 3:12–13); (3) leads me beside quiet (or “still”) waters, which literally means “waters of rest,” in which the Hebrew word for “rest” is what is used elsewhere to denote spiritual rest (i.e., salvation, one’s relationship with God, as in Ps 95:11; Heb 4:1–10); (4) He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness; that is, under His care my spiritual condition is constantly refreshed by following His instructions (cf. Ps 1; Mt 6:33) for His glory and consistent with His plan (cf. 1Kg 8:41–42; Ezr 10:9, 14, 22; Is 48:8; Jr 14:21). David was not asserting here that God always provides (in this lifetime, at least) for believers’ physical needs, but rather that He will always supply what is necessary for the believer’s spiritual well-being. David is confident that the Lord will take action for His name’s sake. The name of the Lord is not distinct from Him, nor is it just a title or description; rather, His name is a manifestation of Himself and His character (cf. Ex 3:14–15; 34:6–7); His name is synonymous with Him. Thus, the Scriptures speak of “praising His name” (e.g., Pss 7:17; 18:49), “loving His name” (e.g., 69:36), “trusting in His name” (e.g., 20:7), and so on. Often the Lord is described as taking action “for Your name’s sake” or “for His name’s sake” (e.g., Pss 25:11; 31:3; cf. 1Kg 8:41–42; Jr 14:21; Ezk 20:9, 14, 22) in order to manifest His glory, power, and reputation in relation to Israel or among the nations.
Rydelnik, M. A., & Vanlaningham, M., eds. (2014). Psalms. In The moody bible commentary (p. 781). Moody Publishers.
Almost 60 Democrats vote against honoring Charlie Kirk The House of Representatives voted to honor the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk by an overwhelming margin Friday, approving a House resolution by a 215-95 vote. The resolution, which was introduced by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., “condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles ‘Charlie’ James Kirk, and all forms of political violence.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan were among the Democrats who voted against the resolution.
Fr. James Martin applauds Pope Leo’s remark that ‘attitudes’ must change before doctrine In a public commentary on Thursday, Father James Martin, S.J., said that Pope Leo XIV’s recent remarks on homosexuality mean that Catholic doctrine on sexual morality could be changed. Martin, writing in response to Leo’s interview with Crux Now correspondent Elise Ann Allen, said the new Pontiff was “100% correct” that it was “a matter of changing ‘attitudes.’”
France’s Political Turmoil Meets Prophetic Calendar as Palestinian State Recognition Nears France was gripped by a second wave of nationwide strikes on Thursday, as hundreds of thousands marched against austerity measures and looming budget cuts—unrest that not only deepens the political crisis for President Emmanuel Macron and his new prime minister, Sébastien Lecornu, but also unfolds in a season many prophecy watchers view as charged with significance. …….
Professor Henrik Svensmark: The Earth’s climate is not in a crisis “Climate science is not normal science,” Danish astrophysicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark says. “It’s a bad career move to go against the idea that CO₂ is the only driver of climate change,” Danish astrophysicist Professor Henrik Svensmark says. But he’s doing it anyway. The Influence of the Sun Has Not Been Considered
US vetoes UN Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution over failure to condemn Hamas The United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that it described as “unacceptable” due to its failure to condemn the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza. The UNSC is widely regarded as the most powerful body within the United Nations. “Colleagues, US opposition to this resolution will come as no surprise,” USUN Counselor Morgan Ortagus stated ahead of the vote. “It fails to condemn Hamas or recognize Israel’s right to defend itself, and it wrongly legitimizes the false narratives benefiting Hamas, which have sadly found currency in this council,” Ortagus argued.
The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025 Have you noticed that our planet has been shaking a lot lately? The magnitude 7.8 earthquake that just hit Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula is just one of the 466,742 earthquakes that have rattled the giant space rock that we all live on this year. Simultaneously, dozens of volcanoes have been erupting, and there have been all sorts of very unusual events in the heavens. If you think that what we are experiencing is “normal”, you probably have not been paying much attention.
Venezuela Launches Military Drills After Trump’s Strikes on Drug Boats. Venezuela has launched a three-day military exercise titled “Sovereign Caribbean” in response to President Donald J. Trump’s recent strikes on drug trafficker boats in the region. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López confirmed the operation involves the deployment of air defense systems, armed drones, and electronic warfare units. The exercises are taking place on La Orchila island, a Venezuelan military base, and feature 12 naval ships, 22 aircraft, and 20 small boats operated by Venezuela’s special maritime militia.
Founder Of NYC Pro-Democracy Group Pleads Guilty To Spying For China A Chinese man living in New York City has pleaded guilty to spying on his fellow activists on behalf of the Chinese regime’s intelligence agency, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced on Sept. 16.
New report: Police officers failed victims of Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham; it shows a cover-up The Independent Office for Police Conduct has published new findings confirming a “systemic organizational failure” by South Yorkshire Police in its response to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, with a specific focus on the failure of senior officers to act on actionable intelligence.
Professor Henrik Svensmark: The Earth’s climate is not in a crisis “It’s a bad career move to go against the idea that CO₂ is the only driver of climate change,” Danish astrophysicist Professor Henrik Svensmark says. But he’s doing it anyway. In an interview with Freedom Research, Prof. Svensmark argued that the climate is not in crisis and that many predictions about global warming are incorrect. According to Prof. Svensmark, climate changes are a natural phenomenon, driven by variations in solar activity and cosmic rays.
The memorial service for Charlie Kirk will be held on Sunday in Glendale, Arizona, under the highest level of security. Tens of thousands are expected to attend, including President Trump.
Providence Baptist Church on RSBN featuring Pastor Dr Rusty Sowell live from Providence Baptist Church in Beauregard, AL Sunday Morning Worship 9/21/25
California Governor Gavin Newsom has struck his latest blow in his war against the Trump Administration’s immigration policies. However, it may ultimately prove toothless considering his apparent lack of legal knowledge.
As KCAL reported, Newsom signed a total of five bills aimed at hamstringing federal officials’ ability to carry out their duties, including rounding up dangerous illegal aliens. This makes California the first state to enact such legislation.
The most provocative bill was the No Secret Police Act (SB 627), which will ban federal and local law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from wearing face masks while on duty. These include neck gators, ski masks, and other facial coverings.
Exemptions are made for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators, or tactical gear. Moreover, the law does not apply to state police.
The bill goes into effect on Jan. 1 of next year.
“We have the right to stand up and push back,” Newsom proclaimed during a press conference after signing the bills. “This is a disgrace, this is an outrage, what we have allowed to happen in this country.”
WATCH:
“We have a right to stand up and push back!” @GavinNewsom says @realDonaldTrump’s immigration enforcement has been like a “dystopian sci fi novel” with “masked men” carrying out orders. @CAgovernor is signing a bill to require federal immigration officials to unmask with… pic.twitter.com/AbPSdA4cl0
Newsom also taunted ICE before he signed the bills.
“To ICE… What are you afraid of?” Newsom said. “You’re gonna do enforcement? Provide an ID.”
Harmeet Dhillion, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, mocked Newsom over the new law by noting that states have no jurisdiction over federal officials’ attire.
In other words, this is nothing more than a pathetic publicity stunt by Newsom and his fellow state Democrats.
“This is silly, and futile,” Dhillion wrote on X. “The state has no jurisdiction over the attire of federal law enforcement officials.”
This is silly, and futile. The state has no jurisdiction over the attire of federal law enforcement officials. https://t.co/PcJIia1WgH
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli also scoffed at Newsom’s grandstanding and said he had directed federal agencies to ignore the stupid laws. He also asked if California would force Antifa thugs to abide by the same standards.
“The State of California has no jurisdiction over the federal government,” Essayli wrote on X. “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress.”
“I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations,” he continued. “Our agents will continue to protect their identities.”
“When can we expect CA to pass a law banning Antifa members from wearing masks while committing state and federal crimes? I’ll wait…”
The State of California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress.
I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their… https://t.co/yqndOh7S62
Despite being vaccinated, the image suggests that one still needs to wear a mask. Since it also references the flu, which recurs every year, it implies that mask-wearing should be ongoing. Photo courtesy of USFDA.
A congressional report has uncovered how the Biden-Harris administration spent $900 million of taxpayer money to push the COVID narrative and keep Americans frightened, locked down, and compliant.
“The HHS taxpayer-funded campaign used emotionally manipulative ads to make clear that getting vaccinated was the only way to see friends, hang out, go on dates, have parties, vacation, and have sleepovers. In the summer of 2024, all HHS campaign materials available on YouTube were made private and are no longer accessible to the public.”
The report was released by the House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee found that taxpayer money was used on ads that overstated vaccine effectiveness, exaggerated the risks of COVID-19 to children, and relied on flawed CDC guidance. The campaign promoted claims, contradicting FDA authorizations, that vaccination would prevent transmission and allow life to return to normal. And these false claims allowed private companies to make hundreds of billions.
Committee leaders argued the effort not only misled Americans but also harmed education and the economy by reinforcing lockdown policies and contributed to declining confidence in other vaccines. They also revealed that part of the funding went to Big Tech companies to track and monitor Americans, raising data privacy concerns.
The report concluded that the “Stop the Spread” campaign eroded trust in government. Republicans placed blame on the administration for politicized messaging and for silencing dissenting scientific voices.
The $900 million expenditure represents a substantial misuse of taxpayer funds for what appears to be political messaging rather than legitimate public health communication. Even under the best circumstances, government intervention distorts economic markets. In this case, the Biden administration also distorted the information market, as centralized messaging campaigns crowded out opposing voices and alternative solutions.
The funding of Big Tech companies for surveillance activities exemplifies crony capitalism. Taxpayer money was used to enrich large corporations while simultaneously expanding government monitoring capabilities. This kind of government-business collusion undermines free speech and hinders both economic and scientific development by silencing dissenting voices.
Social media platforms censored doctors, nurses, and anecdotal evidence that challenged official measures. At the same time, they promoted voices supporting the administration’s line and selectively allowed anecdotal evidence only if it reinforced official policy. During COVID, there was a disturbing slide into elitism: the idea that only “experts” should be allowed to speak. Yet if those experts opposed the measures, no matter their credentials, they were dismissed as not “expert enough.”
There was not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper supporting school closures, yet anyone who questioned them was accused of “denying the science.” The silencing of dissenting scientific voices violates core conservative principles of free speech and open inquiry. Science advances through debate and questioning, not through centralized messaging campaigns that shut down legitimate scientific discussion.
The most powerful advertising for the vaccines came from government messaging, funded by taxpayers, telling us that “vaccines prevent transmission” and that if everyone complied, we could all “return to normal.” The government claimed vaccination was voluntary, yet repeatedly blamed the unvaccinated for the nation’s inability to return to normal. In reality, all it had to do was officially end the emergency and allow life to resume. Instead, citizens were encouraged to pressure or even inform on their neighbors who refused to comply.
By reinforcing lockdown policies through misleading messaging, the campaign caused significant economic damage. School closures and business restrictions imposed massive costs on society, particularly harming small businesses and working families. Meanwhile, certain businesses were allowed to remain open and thrive, with the government deciding which ones were “essential” and which were not.
The emergency powers framework further entrenched this imbalance. EUAs could be renewed indefinitely without requiring full approval data, allowing companies to sell products without meeting normal safety standards while being shielded from competition. Messaging about “free” vaccines was equally misleading, taxpayers were footing the bill through massive government purchases, though this fact was obscured from public understanding.
Ultimately, Biden’s $900 million PR campaign paid off handsomely for the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. government invested at least $31.9 billion in mRNA vaccine research and procurement between 1985 and 2022, with another $29.2 billion spent by BARDA and the Department of Defense on advance purchase commitments for 2 billion doses. The federal government bought 1.2 billion doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines alone at a cost of $25.3 billion. In return, Moderna and Pfizer generated over $100 billion in global vaccine revenues, while the four major producers, Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Sinovac, collectively made $90 billion in profits in just 2021–2022.
ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has a breakdown on air as he discusses Trump’s victory in the 2024 Presidential Election. (Credit: Jimmy Kimmel Live! screenshot)
While the left mourns Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension more passionately and with more outrage than the politically motivated murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk, there is far more behind Kimmel’s downfall than just his willingness to spread fake news to his audience.
According to reports, Kimmel’s show has lost more than 70% of its viewership in recent years, and revenues are down more than $220M, costing the network over $20M this year alone. The show is a losing proposition for the network even before Kimmel’s fake news spreading.
And now, a report from MRC’s NewsBusters sheds light on just how far left the show really is, noting, “According to an aggregation of previous NewsBusters studies, 92 percent of Kimmel’s jokes since January 2023 have been about conservatives, and since September 2022, 97 percent of his political guests have been liberals.”
As far as what Kimmel tries to pass off as jokes, “Since NewsBusters began keeping track, Kimmel told a total of 7,797 political jokes over 369 episodes. Of these, 7,189 were about right-leaning people, groups, or things. Only 565 (7 percent) were about left-leaners and 43 (1 percent) were about non-partisan targets.”
“Kimmel’s top ten favorite targets included only one Democrat. They were: Donald Trump (3,584), Joe Biden (336), George Santos (308), Elon Musk (209), Mike Lindell (203), Melania Trump (181), Donald Trump Jr. (165), MAGA/Trump supporters (155), Eric Trump (142), and Republicans (139).”
The study also notes wide disparities when comparing left and right equivalents.
Republicans 139 vs. Democrats 8 Conservatives 52 vs. Liberals 5 Fox News 71 and Newsmax 4 vs. CNN 3 and MSNBC 0 JD Vance 128 and Mike Pence 8 vs. Tim Walz 15 and Kamala Harris 12 Mike Johnson 56 and Kevin McCarthy 27 vs. Nancy Pelosi 2 and Hakeem Jeffries 1 Melania Trump 181 vs. Jill Biden 5 Donald Trump Jr. 165 and Eric Trump 142 vs. Hunter Biden 23 Guests
Ever since NewsBusters started counting, Kimmel has brought on 63 political guests, 61 of whom have been liberals or Democrats. That works out to 97 percent. However, the two conservative guests both come with disclaimers. One guest was My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, who, as a condition for his appearance, spent the entire interview inside of an arcade claw machine game. It was not meant to be a serious interview. Second was comedian Bill Burr, who confronted Kimmel on his own show about liberals making Trump a martyr amid all his legal battles. However, Burr is counted as a liberal in his other appearance because of his “Free Luigi” ramblings.
In addition to Burr, guests to appear multiple times in the study’s runtime include George Conway, Jane Fonda, John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
War Room’s Steve Bannon and Dave Brat discussed the blatant hypocrisy of the left when it comes to the topic of free speech. After the brutal murder and assassination of Charlie Kirk, the left has been complaining about free speech despite spending years silencing conservatives and Christians in the United States. They were also the same group who did everything possible to keep the country shut down during covid.
Bannon also discussed antifa being classified as a terrorist organization and how bad actors like Soros are going to be investigated for financing groups that hate this country. Bannon also talked about the potential for seat gains in the House with redistricting.
“There may be up to 20 seats, 20 seats that we can do on redistricting. 20 seats. Write that down, liberal media,” Bannon said.
“They are yammering on about Jimmy Kimmel. This is the worst thing that ever happened,” Bannon said of the left’s complaints.
“You got the terrorist act, antifa which is gonna expand into detailed investigations of Soros, the Ford Foundation, Tides, Arabella. All of it. We are coming for you,” Bannon declared.
Dave Brat explained very clearly that the left’s hypocrisy was evident in what they have done to the country for years.
“The left put you and Navarro in jail, got President Trump shot, shut down the whole country,” Brat said.
“After Covid, they shut down the entire country. They shut down churches, they shut down the conservative voice,” Brat explained.
Brat also explained that the tech firms that are controlled by the left have a large amount of financial power in the markets.
“The private firms are gaining. The big seven tech firms own about 40 percent of the S&P 500,” Brat said.
“They are gigantic. They shut us all down. And now we have to pay the price, right? Through these visa programs,” Brat warned.
Brat also commented on the FCC and exposed the hypocrisy of the left when they complained about President Trump.
“Trump has a lot of latitude here with the public interest with the FCC. Right? That phrase, the left always uses is we’ve got to do this for the common good,” Brat said.
Jimmy Kimmel’s downfall was not sudden, nor was it really about one offensive remark regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
The truth is, ABC had been looking for a reason to push him out. Kimmel’s contract, set to expire next year, gave the network an easy out: if he became a liability to the company’s image, he could be suspended.
That is precisely what happened. The Charlie Kirk controversy was only the excuse.
WATCH: Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother TO Get Citizenship
For years, Kimmel collected a staggering $16 million annually, while his ratings were collapsing.
“Jimmy Kimmel Live!” fell from nearly two million viewers in January 2025 to just 1.1 million by August, trailing his late-night competitors.
Those numbers told ABC all it needed to know. Why keep paying one of television’s most enormous salaries when the show could no longer justify the cost?
Kimmel’s political imbalance only exacerbated the situation.
According to NewsBusters, he hosted just one Republican guest in three years—Mike Lindell, who was mocked by being forced into a claw machine.
By contrast, Kimmel welcomed 13 left-leaning guests this year alone. His monologues became partisan screeds: 1,128 jokes about Donald Trump in 2025, compared to just 26 about Joe Biden.
Nearly 97% of his political jokes targeted conservatives. Kimmel wasn’t a comedian anymore. He was a political activist with a studio audience.
The network could tolerate this bias when ratings were high.
But once his audience shrank and his public reputation soured, Kimmel no longer looked like an asset.
His comments about Charlie Kirk’s death—claiming the “MAGA gang” tried to spin the murder—only accelerated the inevitable.
ABC didn’t suspend him because of “free speech” or political pressure. They suspended him because his contract allowed them to whenever he embarrassed the company.
The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Kimmel mocked conservatives endlessly, misled viewers about one of the most shocking assassinations in modern American history, and still got paid millions for it.
Meanwhile, his audience dwindled, his jokes lost relevance, and his public image grew toxic.
Even within liberal circles, Kimmel had become hard to defend.
As Roger Stone bluntly put it, “Kimmel’s greatest crime was that he wasn’t funny, and that his rhetoric often veered into the hateful. He won’t be missed.”
That sentiment resonates across the spectrum: Kimmel was expensive, polarizing, and ultimately replaceable.
ABC framed his suspension as indefinite, but the writing is on the wall.
His contract was nearly up anyway, and the network was already preparing for life after Kimmel. The Charlie Kirk controversy was simply the final straw.
Jimmy Kimmel didn’t lose his show because of one comment. He lost it because his time was already up.
Conservative historian and scholar Victor Davis Hanson recently commented on the murder of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath, while looking at the bigger picture.
Hanson suggests that the killing of Kirk is a turning point for Western Civilization. He talks about the resolve many people feel right now to reject anti-Americanism in our culture and our politics.
As usual, all of Hanson’s commentary is calm, well thought out and constructive.
What is this moment? We’re seeing it in the United States with thousands of people commemorating the death of Charlie Kirk. There’s no tolerance for the usual left-wing, socialist craziness, the abhorrent, violent smears of conservatives who’ve died. And you don’t see major bureaucrats, or generals, or Hollywood figures—increasingly, they’re not coming out and rejoicing because they feel that they’re going to get a big pushback.
This is not violent. It’s just a collective shrug. And what is the shrug, basically? It’s saying we’re tolerant of people with alternate lifestyles. But whether we like it or not, the nuclear two-parent family, for 2,500 years, has ensured the survival of Western civilization. It gives us two to three to four children, and we can reproduce the species.
We’re tolerant of Islam and Buddhism, Hinduism. We have a multiracial, multicultural population. But whether we like it or not, the foundations of the United States are Judeo-Christian, as they are of Western civilization in general. We have no apologies for that. Sermon on the Mount is a unique document.
We also are tired of what I call boutique anti-Americanism. We see Rep. Ilhan Omar suggesting that our elected government is worse than the dictatorship in Somalia; or we see Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling President Donald Trump a fascist, as she has in the past; or we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib just demonizing and damning the United States, even though her parents fled the Middle East to come here. And we’re tired of it.
Here’s the short version of the video:
.@VDHanson: The Right Isn’t Getting Violent—Just Saying ‘Enough.’
This is a turning point in American politics.
The Right has lost all tolerance for the Left following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, particularly due to the Left's immediate and unacceptable reaction to his… pic.twitter.com/lxdlpz5j9u
Tom Homan appeared on the Bill Maher show this weekend and was asked by Maher why we can’t just give amnesty to the millions of people who came into the country illegally.
Maher used all the typical liberal arguments against Homan, even going so far as to suggest that ICE is scaring people.
Homan broke it all down logically, and by the time he was done even Maher’s liberal audience was applauding.
TOM HOMAN: What I’m saying is, that’s why you have to show there’s consequences. Because if you send a message there’s no consequences, and you want to reward illegal behavior, that’s not going to stop.
BILL MAHER: And I get all that, and for all that I thank you for your service, truly. But what we also see is people being just taken away who are just regular-day workers. The waitress who worked for 14 years at some coffee shop. And everybody’s like, oh, you know what? We voted to get rid of the bad people, you know, the people you were just talking about, but not Carol. [Crowd applauds]. What’s going on there? Don’t you think it’s been a little heavy-handed? Don’t you think you’ve picked up a bunch of people who shouldn’t be picked up at all? It doesn’t seem like it was done with a scalpel.
HOMAN: What I think about every day is, again, we prioritize the worst first, and in the numbers show we do it. What I’ve said from day one, if you’re in the country illegally, you’re not off the table. You know why? Because there are millions of people standing in line, taking their tests, doing the background investigations, paying their fees to be part of the greatest nation on earth. If you want to be a part of greatest nation, there’s a right way and wrong way to do it. If like it or not, the ones who are here illegally cheated the system.
There is more. Be sure to stay with this until the end:
🚨NEW: Tom Homan tells Bill Maher why "AMNESTY" not an option to conclude interview — and crowd *APPLAUDS* him👏
HOMAN: "If you want to send a message to the whole world: 'Cross the border illegally, it's a crime, but it's okay. Have due process, get ordered removed by an… pic.twitter.com/hmCFBZpsCI
Truth2Freedom's Blog 