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
And that the temptations of Satan may not overcome us.
I pray that I may not enter into temptation; Matthew 26:41(ESV) or, however, that no temptation may overtake me that is not common to man. And may the faithful God never let me be tempted beyond my ability, but with the temptation provide the way of escape for me. 1 Corinthians 10:13(ESV)
Put upon me the whole armor of God, that I may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil; Ephesians 6:11(ESV) to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Fasten on me the belt of truth, put on me the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for my feet, put on me the readiness given by the gospel of peace. Give me the shield of faith, with which I may extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one, and the helmet of salvation; and let the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, be always ready to me. Ephesians 6:13-17(ESV)
Enable me to resist the devil, so that he may flee from me; James 4:7(ESV) to resist him firm in the faith. 1 Peter 5:9(ESV) And may you, the God of peace, tread Satan under your people’s feet, and may you do it soon. Romans 16:20(ESV)
Nehemiah 9:38-10:39 In this week’s study, we look at the third stage of revival in Nehemiah, which is a formal commitment to change.
Theme
The Sabbath and the Temple
2. The Sabbath (v. 31). The second specific commitment of the people on this great covenant day was to the Sabbath, to keep it by abstaining from all commercial activity, and to observe the seventh year Sabbath of the land in which the fields would not be worked. The requirement has precedent in God’s resting from creation on the seventh day and goes back to the Ten Commandments which say, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy” (Exod. 20:8). In my opinion, Christians are not under the specific Sabbath laws of the Old Testament. We have been delivered from keeping “special days and months and seasons and years” (Gal. 4:10). But that is not the whole story. True, we have not been commanded to observe an inactive Sabbath. But we have been given a new day, the Lord’s Day, to enjoy. Our day is not a sober day of withdrawal. It is a day of active, joyful worship. But the question is: Do we actually enjoy it as such? Do we use it for worship, Christian service and witness? Or do we only pretend to do it, spending a few formal moments in church in order to be free to spend the rest of the day watching football or merely lounging around?
3. The temple tax (vv. 32-33). The third matter in which the people of Jerusalem made a formal commitment was the paying of the temple tax. Here we have two problems. The first is technical. In the Pentateuch, according to Exodus 30:11-16, the temple tax had been fixed at half a shekel, while here, in Nehemiah 10:32, it is a third of a shekel. Since not even the priests were free to alter God’s law, some explanation is in order. Usually this is explained by assuming that the Jerusalem and Babylonian shekels had different valuations, which is not unlikely, or by noting that in Exodus the tax was only to be paid when a census was taken while in Nehemiah it was to be paid annually.
The bigger problem is in relating this temple tax to ourselves. We do not have anything like a large central temple in our religious systems, and the more general matter of support of Christian work by our stewardship is covered later in reference to the tithe (see number 6 below). Is the matter of the temple tax therefore completely irrelevant to us?
I do not think so. Rather, I think that this item (as well as the added concern to provide wood and other necessary supplies for the temple, which comes next) shows a priority. It is a priority for having a central location for corporate worship and for God’s service.
We need similar focal points for Christian faith today. The obvious ones are the local churches.
I notice here that although the Persian kings had made certain important provisions for the Jewish temple (cf. Ezra 6:8-10), the people did not expect them to keep on doing that but rather assumed responsibility for providing for the temple services themselves. That is also a Christian responsibility. The government may provide certain advantages to churches and other “charitable” organizations. But we cannot expect the government to support them. Nor should it. If Christians do not support the Lord’s work, the Lord’s work will not be supported.
4. Additional provisions for the temple (vv. 34-35). The people of Jerusalem seem not to have been content merely with paying the temple tax. They recognized that the temple service required other things which they also could provide, specifically wood for the great altar and the firstfruits of their crops and trees. They promised to supply it. In the same way, there are things we can give to Christian work aside from money. Service organizations need donations of food and clothing. We can offer our expertise in certain areas. Most importantly, we can contribute time.
Study Questions
What was the second commitment, and how was it to be carried out? What was the precedent for this?
List the third commitment. How can we as Christians apply this today?
Application
Reflection: How do you spend your Sundays? Do you treat it as a special day that is different from the other days of your week? Is it characterized by worship, service, and rest?
Application: Besides money, how else can you give to Christian work?
For Further Study: Download for free and listen to Derek Thomas’ message, “The God of the Covenants.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
When the fullness of time came a, God sent His Son, His eternal wisdom, the substance of His own glory, into this world, who took the nature of manhood of the substance of a woman, to wit, of a virgin, and that by operation of the Holy Ghost b, and so was born the just seed of David, the angel of the great counsel of God, the very Messiah promised c. Whom we acknowledge and confess, Immanuel, very God and very man, two perfect natures united and joined in one person. By which our confession, we condemn the damnable and pestilent heresies of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius, and such others, as either deny the eternity of His Godhead, or the verity of His human nature, or confounded them, or yet denied them.
Does God really send people who don’t believe in Jesus into an eternal torture chamber when they die? Put that way, the idea of Hell seems preposterous, even wicked. Unending agony for ignorance of Jesus, or culturally-biased refusal of Jesus seems more like cruelty than justice. But this is not what the Bible means by Hell.
To understand the doctrine, we first need to ask if any of us believe in retributive justice. In other words, do we, as people who claim to be loving, believe that people guilty of horrifying, sickening acts of evil need to face punishment for what they have done? Or should Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot simply have been sent to reformatories to improve their behaviour? We all know what the canned, scripted answer of the enlightened Left will be: “no one deserves to be punished”. But actually, when we face the horror of evil, that is not what we say. We cry out for an answer to the evil that will meet it in kind. In fact, it is our love of people that hates the evil. We sense that justice need not be malicious and vengeful to be retributive. Retribution simply means “to pay back”. What evil has broken, damaged and defiled, it now receives back in a fitting retribution. If we agree that evil deserves retribution, and that justice demands it, we can at least agree that it is possible that Hell could be a just retribution for evil.
The next thing we need to ask is if any offence could merit something like the description of Hell. When confronted with the most horrific crimes (rape, torture, child abuse, murder, genocide) most people have a kind of “death-penalty-reflex”. Though they will often later moderate their comments to fall in line with their established political views (no death penalty), but initially they often cry out for the perpetrator to die, to suffer, and even to “rot in Hell”. I’ve read people on the extreme left whose comments upon the death of a conservative are to the tune of “the world is now a better place”. In other words, their death is, on balance, a good thing, a kind of justice. Almost universally, people recognise that some crimes merit death. Now if it is possible to merit death for crimes against other people, it is even more likely to merit death for crimes against God, seeing that God’s standards are perfect.
That leads us to another question. Since capital punishment results in the cessation of bodily life on earth, what would the spiritual death-penalty be? What is everlasting capital punishment? The Bible’s answer is to give us multiple analogies and descriptions. One is the image of retributive punishment (Luke 16:19-31). A second image is of humiliating banishment (Matt. 22:13). A third image is of destruction (Matt. 10:28). Though it is difficult to fully reconcile these images, we dare not dispense with any of them. The reality of eternal death is somehow all of them. Arguments about the literalness of the fires of Hell miss the point. Surely the point is that the reality of Hell is worse than one metaphor can fully capture. That should be enough to flee the wrath to come.
Finally, if we have agreed to this point, we must ask what kind of sin could possibly merit eternal capital punishment. The answer is: God-murder. Jesus told us that whoever hates his brother has committed murder in his heart. Therefore, whoever hates God is guilty of the equivalent of (attempted) God-murder.
But who hates God? Answer: Whoever receives food, rain and sunshine and never thanks God treats Him with spite. Whoever receives gifts from God and discards them treats God with spite; that is, whoever sees the beauty of creation and suppresses the truth that it is all a gift from God. Whoever hears the pleading of God and slams the door in His face treats God with hate; that is, whoever ignores his own conscience and does what he knows is wrong defies the Lawgiver. Whoever receives personal invitations from God and tears them up treats God with spite; whoever despises the Bible, and its message, and its messengers treats God’s own words with contempt.
Certainly, most people don’t feel that they hate God. But that’s exactly what hardness of heart is: when our moral and spiritual sensitivity has become calloused and indifferent, and we no longer feel the injustice and injury of what we are doing. The fact that many Nazi executioners felt little guilt over their crimes hardly exonerates them; if anything, it condemns them further.
And in the end, this is the other side of hell. As a human being turns in on itself, it descends into its own torture, banishment and death. God-rejection means that a form of Hell begins while on earth. Rejecting the Source of life, the human lives a living death. Hell continues and extends that state, but with addition of the banging of the gavel of Divine Justice.
Can a loving God send people to Hell? A loving God must send people to Hell, if His love is just. Not for ignorance. Not for mistakes. Not for unavoidable cultural differences. For wilful, spiteful, and continual indifference and malice towards the Fountain of Life and Goodness.
Even Jesus’ disciples struggled to grapple with the doctrine of predestination. Today, R.C. Sproul describes how wrestling with this important doctrine can lead us to cherish the truth of God’s sovereign grace.
And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner. (14:29–40)
In this section the apostle concludes his critical discussion of matters related to spiritual gifts. He pulls together a few remaining exhortations to summarize what had been left unsaid in the previous correctives. Admittedly, as has been obvious, some things in this whole passage are difficult to understand, because we cannot fully reconstruct the scene in Corinth. The last few exhortations, however, leave little confusion about their meaning.
And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (14:29–33a)
Like that of the apostles, and unlike that of pastors and teachers, however, the unique office of prophet ceased to exist while the church was still very young. Judging from Paul’s pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus), prophets ceased to function in the church even before the end of the apostolic age. In those letters he makes considerable mention of church leadership—elders, deacons, deaconesses, and bishops—but makes no mention of prophets. Along with the apostles, prophets were a part of the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), and are the first office to have disappeared from the New Testament church. But when Paul wrote this letter to Corinth, prophets were still very central to the work of that church. In fact, nowhere in this letter is there mention of a pastor, elder, or overseer. The prophets seem to have been the key leaders in the early days of the church (cf. Acts 13:1). Because this was obviously the case in Corinth, Paul was compelled to give some principles for the prophets to follow. In verses 29–33a Paul gives four regulations for prophesying: (1) only two or three prophets were to speak; (2) the other prophets were to judge what was said; (3) if someone else had a revelation, the first speaker was to yield to him; and (4) each prophet was to speak in turn. First, only two or three prophets were to speak at any given service. Those New Testament prophets spoke for the Lord in two ways. In some instances they gave new revelation from God to the church. And, by reiterating what the apostles taught, they also proclaimed what had previously been revealed, much as preachers and teachers of the Word do today. Second, when prophets spoke in a meeting, the other prophets present were to pass judgment (from diakrinō). The judging prophets may have had the gift of discernment (cf. 12:10; diakrisis, “distinguishing”) or they may simply have measured what was said against their own knowledge of the Word and will of God. In any case they were collectively to evaluate the validity of all prophetic messages. The Holy Spirit enabled those evaluating prophets to “test the spirits to see whether they [were] from God” (1 John 4:1). Since the prophets sometimes were entrusted with new revelation, it was especially vital that everything they preached and taught was absolutely true and consistent. Because they were helping build the foundation of the church, the validity of their teaching was of the utmost importance. No prophet acted unilaterally in teaching. There was accountability among all of them. Third, if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. A new revelation took precedence over the reiteration of something that had already been taught. It was not that the truths in the new revelation were necessarily more important than those then being proclaimed, but that, at the moment, the new should be heard while it was fresh from the Lord. That is not an issue in the church today, because the revelation aspect of the prophetic ministry ceased with the completion of the New Testament. But apparently in the early church such conflicts sometimes occurred. When they did, the prophet with the new revelation was to be given the floor. In other words, when God spoke directly, everyone was to listen. Fourth, whether to give new revelation or to reinforce previous revelation, the prophets were to prophesy one by one. Just as with speaking in tongues, it was imperative that only one person speak at a time, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted. The conjunction hina (so that) is used to express the twofold purpose for all such prophesying: learning and exhortation (cf. v. 3). Paul reinforces the principle of prophets judging one another’s messages (cf. 29). The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (cf. v. 29). Not only are prophets to judge the authenticity of what other prophets say, but each prophet is to have control of his own spirit. The Bible knows nothing of out-of-spirit or out-of-mind revelations. Those to whom God revealed His Word did not always fully comprehend the message they were given, but they were always fully aware of what the message was and aware that it was given to them by God. God does not bypass men’s minds either to reveal or to teach His Word. There were no ecstatic, bizarre, trancelike experiences related to divine action or the prophet, such as occurred and occurs with demonic revelations. That was one clear test to distinguish the work of the Holy Spirit from the work of demons, and assumes the Corinthians were having difficulty so distinguishing (cf. 12:3). For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. Here is the key to the whole chapter. Our worship of God should reflect the character and nature of God. He is the God of peace and harmony, not of strife and confusion (cf. Rom. 15:33; 2 Thess. 3:16; Heb. 13:20). God cannot be honored where there is disharmony and confusion, competition and frenzy, self-serving and self-glorying. Chaos and discord in a church meeting is certain proof that the Spirit of God is not in control. Where His Spirit rules there is always peace (cf. James 3:14–18).
OTHER GENERAL REGULATIONS
As in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (14:33b–38)
The second half of verse 33 seems to fit best with verse 34. The phrase as in all the churches of the saints is not logically related to God’s not being a God of confusion. The phrase does, however, make a logical introduction to Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. Paul was emphasizing the fact that the principle of women’s not speaking in church services was not local, geographical, or cultural, but universal, in all the churches of the saints. Though it embraces tongues, the context here refers to prophecy. Women are not to exercise any such ministries. The women who joined in the chaotic self-expression which Paul has been condemning not only added to the confusion but should not have been speaking in the first place. In God’s order for the church, women should subject themselves, just as the Law also says. The principle was first taught in the Old Testament and is reaffirmed in the New. In reflection of that principle, no women were permitted to speak at the Jewish synagogues. One of the designs of creation, as well as one of the primary consequences of the Fall, was the submission of women (Gen. 3:16). Paul reflected that principle explicitly when he said, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:11–12). Paul’s argument was not based on cultural standards but on two historic and foundational facts: (1) “Adam … was first created, and then Eve” and (2) “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman” (vv. 13–14). Men are to lead in love; women are to submit in love. That is God’s design. It is not coincidental that, like Corinth, many of the churches today that practice speaking in tongues and claim gifts of healing also permit women to engage in speaking ministry. Many charismatic groups, in fact, were begun by women, just as many of the cults that have sprung from Christianity were founded by women. When women usurp man’s God-ordained role, they inevitably fall into other unbiblical practices and delusions. Women may be highly gifted teachers and leaders, but those gifts are not to be exercised over men in the services of the church. God has ordained order in His creation, an order that reflects His own nature and that therefore should be reflected in His church. When any part of His order is ignored or rejected, His church is weakened and He is dishonored. Just as God’s Spirit cannot be in control where there is confusion and chaos in the church, He cannot be in control where women take upon themselves roles that He has restricted to men. It is improper [aischros, “shameful, disgraceful”] for a woman to speak in church. That statement leaves no question as to its meaning. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. The implication is present in this statement that certain women were out of order in asking questions in the church service. If they desired to learn, the church was no place for them to express their questions in a disruptive way. Paul also implies, of course, that Christian husbands should be well taught in the Word. Many women are tempted to go beyond their biblical roles because of frustration with Christian men, often including their own husbands, who do not responsibly fulfill the leadership assignments God has given them. But God has established the proper order and relationship of male-female roles in the church, and they are not to be transgressed for any reason. For a woman to take on a man’s role because he has neglected it merely compounds the problem. It is not possible for a woman to substitute for a man in such things. God often has led women to do work that men have refused to do, but He does not lead them to accomplish that work through roles He has restricted to men. There are times in informal meetings and Bible studies where it is entirely proper for men and women to share equally in exchanging questions and insights. But when the church comes together as a body to worship God, His standards are clear: the role of leadership is reserved for men. Obviously many of the Corinthian believers, men as well as women, had contended with Paul about this matter. They were determined to follow their own principles and standards regardless of what the apostle or other mature leaders said. In its pride and arrogance the church wanted to be a law unto itself, deciding on its own what was right and proper. They acted as if they had a corner on truth and dared others to question them. The Corinthians put themselves above Scripture, either ignoring it or interpreting it in ways that fit their predisposed notions. So Paul challenges them in his most biting and sarcastic words yet: Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? He said, in effect, “If you didn’t write Scripture, then obey it. If you are not the sole receivers of God’s Word, then subject yourselves to it as faithful children of God, as Christians everywhere else are obliged to do.” No believer has a right to overrule, ignore, alter, or disobey the Word of God. To do so is to put himself above God’s Word. He continues the challenge: If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. In the context of what Paul has been focusing on in reference to prophets and tongues, it seems that spiritual must refer primarily to those who spoke in tongues, the special spiritual language the Corinthians prized so highly. His point is this: “If a person claims to be a prophet or to have the gift of tongues or any other spiritual gift, the mark of his true calling and faithful ministry will be his acknowledging that what I teach as an apostle are the truths of God. If a person is truly called or gifted of God and is sincerely trying to follow God, he will submit the exercise of his calling and gift to the principles God has revealed to me as His commandments.” What the apostle taught was not optional. On the other side, But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. This play on words carries the idea that anyone who disregards the Word should himself be disregarded. The mark of a false prophet or a counterfeiter of tongues, or of a person who misuses a true calling or gift, was his rejection of what Paul taught. Because such persons rejected the apostle’s teaching, they were rejected as legitimate servants of God. Because it was the revelation of God as Scripture, Paul’s teaching was absolutely authoritative (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15–16). This emphasis on authority comes at an appropriate place, because so many Corinthian believers had wanted to disregard Paul’s words about tongues and women. Paul says the church should ignore such ignorant, self-styled rejectors. In verses 37–38 Paul gives perhaps his strongest claim to authority as God’s apostle. Paul had personal limitations and blind spots, which he freely recognized (see, e.g., Phil. 3:12–14). But when He spoke for God, his views were not tainted by cultural or personal bias. He did not, for instance, teach the submission of women in the church because of his Jewish background or in order to conform to any personal male chauvinism. He taught that truth because he himself had been so taught by the Lord. Paul did not claim omniscience, but he claimed unequivocally that everything he taught about God, about His gospel, and about His church was God’s own teaching, the Lord’s commandment. No matter what their position, training, experience, expertise, or talents, Christians who reject Paul’s teaching reject God’s teaching, and are themselves to be rejected as teachers or leaders in His church.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (pp. 389–394). Moody Press.
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.Revelation 2:7
No man may turn his back in the day of battle or refuse to go to the holy war. We must fight if we would reign, and we must carry on the warfare till we overcome every enemy, or else this promise is not for us, since it is only for “him that overcometh.” We are to overcome the false prophets who have come into the world and all the evils which accompany their teaching. We are to overcome our own faintness of heart and tendency to decline from our first love. Read the whole of the Spirit’s word to the church at Ephesus.
If by grace we win the day, as we shall if we truly follow our conquering Leader, then we shall be admitted to the very center of the paradise of God and shall be permitted to pass by the cherub and his flaming sword and come to that guarded tree, whereof if a man eat, he shall live forever. We shall thus escape that endless death which is the doom of sin and gain that everlasting life which is the seal of innocence, the outgrowth of immortal principles of Godlike holiness. Come, my heart, pluck up courage! To flee the conflict will be to lose the joys of the new and better Eden; to fight unto victory is to walk with God in paradise.
Peter … said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. (4:8–13)
Instead of being frightened into silence or compromise, Peter displayed great courage and went on the offensive. Submission is not cowardice. He began by indicting them for the incongruity of putting him and John on trial … for a benefit done to a sick man. He thus turned the tables on the Sanhedrin and subtly accused them of injustice—certainly it couldn’t be wrong to heal a lame man. Since they had demanded to know as to how this man has been made well, by what name (or authority) the apostles performed the miracle, Peter told them. He desired them and all the people of Israel to know that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—whom they crucified, but God raised from the dead—the beggar stood before them in good health. In the very citadel of the Sanhedrin’s power Peter put his judges on trial by proclaiming the truth about the living Christ to those responsible for His execution. By pointing out that they executed Jesus but God raised Him up, Peter showed them to be the enemies of God. That approach was frequently employed in Acts (cf. 2:23–24; 3:14–15; 10:39–40; 13:27–30). Peter refused to compromise the gospel by deleting what would offend the Sanhedrin. He spoke courageously because he was devoted to the truth and entrusted the outcome to his Lord. That is an example for all persecuted believers to follow. One of the most formidable barriers to the Sanhedrin’s acceptance of Jesus as Messiah was that He could not prevent Himself from being killed. That did not fit their conception of the Messiah as a political and military deliverer. As he had done on the day of Pentecost, Peter turned to the Old Testament Scriptures to build his case. He quoted Psalm 118:22, applying it to their rejection of Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 12:10–11; 1 Peter 2:4, 6–8). Peter was not leading the Jews away from God but preaching the very truth of the Old Testament as fulfilled in Jesus. He was the stone which was rejected by them, the builders or spiritual leaders of the nation. Although they rejected Jesus, God made Him the very corner stone through His resurrection and exaltation. Again, Peter puts them in opposition to God—they rejected Jesus, but God gave Him the place of preeminence. He is the cornerstone of God’s spiritual temple, the church (Eph. 2:19–22). They were the ones leading the people away from God. In verse 12 Peter gives what amounts to a direct invitation to the Sanhedrin to repent and embrace Jesus Christ to be saved. He had already declared that the healing of the lame beggar had been done in Jesus’ name. Now he goes further and proclaims that there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved. Saved is a form of the same verb (sozō) used in verse 9 to describe the healing of the lame man. Not only was Jesus the source of physical healing, but He is also the only source of spiritual healing. Deliverance from the devastating effects of sin comes only through Jesus Christ. Peter did not invent that truth; he is merely echoing his Master. In John 14:6 Jesus declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” This same exclusivity is claimed by our Lord in John 10:7–8 when He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers.” The exclusivism of Christianity goes against the grain of our religiously pluralistic society. A chapel built at the North Pole in February 1959 by the men of Operation Deep Freeze 4 typifies the prevalent attitude today toward religious belief. The structure contained an altar, over which was hung a picture of Jesus, a crucifix, a star of David, and a lotus leaf (representing the Buddha). On the wall of the chapel was an inscription that read “Now it can be said that the earth turns on the point of faith.” Christians preach an exclusive Christ in an inclusive age. Because of that, we are often accused of being narrow-minded, even intolerant. Many paths, it is said, lead to the top of the mountain of religious enlightenment. How dare we insist that ours is the only one? In reality, however, there are only two religious paths: the broad way of works salvation leading to destruction, and the narrow way of faith in the only Savior leading to eternal life (Matt. 7:13–14). Religious people are on either one or the other. Sadly, the Sanhedrin and all who followed them were on the broad road to hell. Peter’s impassioned plea failed to soften the hardened hearts of the Sanhedrin. Yet it was not without some effect. They could not help being impressed with the confidence of Peter and John. They were amazed that uneducated (in the rabbinical schools) and untrained men (not professional theologians; laymen) could argue so effectively from the Scriptures. That two Galilean fishermen powerfully and successfully argued their case before the elite Jewish supreme court was shocking, so that they were marveling. The explanation slowly dawned on the Sanhedrin, as they began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. No doubt it came back to their memories that the two apostles had been with Jesus in the temple and at His trial (John 18:15–18). What triggered the Sanhedrin’s recognition was the realization that the apostles were doing what Jesus did. Like the apostles, Jesus had boldly and fearlessly confronted the Jewish leaders with His authority and truth (cf. Matt. 7:28–29). He, too, had no formal rabbinic training (cf. John 7:15–16). Yet in His sure handling of the Old Testament Scriptures He had no equal (cf. John 7:46). Jesus had performed many miracles during His earthly ministry. Peter and John were on trial largely because of a miracle they had performed. The attempt by the Sanhedrin to suppress the apostles’ teaching had given them a priceless opportunity. They boldly seized it and proclaimed the gospel to the highest officials of the nation. That is how to handle persecution—face it with the boldest proclamation of the truth.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1994). Acts (Vol. 1, pp. 134–136). Moody Press.
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” We make these observations: a. Salvation proclaimed. “Salvation is found in no one else.” This text is among the well-known and cherished passages in Acts. Peter challenges his immediate audience but at the same time speaks to all people who seek salvation. He addresses learned and influential men in the Sanhedrin whose work consisted of showing the people of Israel the way of salvation. They did so by telling the Jews to perform works that would earn them salvation. But Peter preaches that salvation can be obtained in no way other than through the name of Jesus Christ. The salvation he preaches comprises both physical and spiritual healing. They see the evidence of physical healing in the man who used to be a cripple. But they must understand that spiritual well-being includes forgiveness of sin and a restored relationship with God. No one in Peter’s audience is able to point to any person who grants salvation, because everyone needs salvation himself. Hence, they should realize that they can have peace with God only through Jesus Christ. b. Name given. “There is no other name under heaven given among men.” The name Jesus reveals the task of the Savior, because the name means “he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That is, he heals people physically from the effect of sin, but more than that, he removes sin itself so that people can stand before the judgment seat of God as if they had never sinned at all. Jesus makes them spiritually whole by restoring them in true relation to God the Father. Jesus says, “No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6). No person but Jesus has the ability to provide remission of sin. “Through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins” (10:43). Peter resorts not to an overstatement but rather to a descriptive idiom when he says that there is no other name under heaven than the name Jesus. Nowhere in the entire world is man able to find another name (i.e., person) that offers the salvation Jesus provides. Religions other than Christianity fail because they stress salvation by works and not by grace. The name Jesus has been given to men by God himself to show that salvation has its origin in God. c. Believers saved. “[No other name] by which we must be saved.” The Greek text is specific. It does not say that we can be saved, for this would indicate that man has inherent ability to achieve salvation. Nor does it say that we may be saved, for then the clause would convey uncertainty. The text is definite. It says: “by which we must be saved.” The word must reveals a divine necessity which God has established, according to his plan and decree, to save us through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this word signifies that man is under moral obligation to respond to the call to believe in Jesus Christ and thus gain salvation. He has no recourse to salvation other than through the Son of God.
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Vol. 17, pp. 155–156). Baker Book House.
“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” —James Madison (1788)
Hamas accepts Trump’s deal: “Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Donald Trump announced via Truth Social. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed-upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.” While the full specifics of the peace plan have yet to be fleshed out, Hamas will disarm and return all remaining Israeli hostages by Saturday; Israel will withdraw from Gaza and return several hundred imprisoned militants; Hamas will be granted “amnesty”; and an international group will take charge of the administration and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The two-year-long war is now effectively over. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked “Trump for his leadership, his partnership, and his unwavering commitment to the safety of Israel and the freedom of our hostages.”
Dems perpetuate the Schumer Shutdown: On Wednesday, Senate Democrats once again blocked a clean resolution vote to end the partial government shutdown. With the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the stopgap spending bill to a floor vote, Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, voted against advancement; the tally was 54-45. Thus far, two Democrats and one independent senator who caucuses with Democrats have sided with Republicans. Schumer and company are holding up reopening the government as they demand that Republicans agree to extend temporary COVID-introduced ObamaCare subsidies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has rejected the Democrats’ bully tactic, stating, “I know this story’s getting old. You’re trying to find new angles, but it’s the same [thing], the conversation will happen when we open up the government.” He added, “Nothing’s changed.”
SCOTUS church bomb threat more sinister than believed: On Monday, we covered a possible threat to the Red Mass traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices; new details paint a more ominous picture. Louis Geri was camped outside the Cathedral of St. Matthew when police confronted him at 6 a.m. Geri warned police to “call the federales” and that he had explosives. A standoff then took place during which Geri flaunted some of the 200 explosives he had with him and warned that several police officers would die if they did not stand back. A manifesto he handed over to police showed premeditation as well as hate for Catholics, Jews, the Supreme Court, and ICE. The standoff ended in Geri’s arrest after he stepped out of his tent to urinate on some trees. Bomb technicians have reported that Geri’s explosives were fully functional.
Trump floats declaring antifa a foreign terrorist organization: Conversing at the White House with a number of journalists who have covered antifa and been beaten and battered by the group for doing so, Donald Trump was asked if he would move to declare the radical-leftist group a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). “I think it’s the kind of thing I’d like to do,” Trump answered. In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Trump officially designated antifa a domestic terrorist organization. However, designating it as an FTO would make it harder for the group to publicly exist, as it would make it illegal for anyone in the U.S. to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to the terrorist group. Steve Witkoff, the State Department’s special envoy to the Middle East, says designating antifa an FTO is possible because “there are extensive foreign ties.”
Palisades Fire arson arrest: “Florida resident” Jonathan Rinderknecht was arrested at his home on Tuesday on charges of igniting the Lachman fire, which was contained above ground but continued burning underground until the Santa Ana winds reignited it, leading to the Palisades Fire. An Uber driver who resided in California at the time, Rinderknecht was “agitated and angry” the night he started the fire, according to some of his passengers. Rinderknecht is charged with destruction of property, which carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence if convicted. The arrest of a suspected arsonist in connection with these devastating fires is a blow to the “climate change” narrative that leftists breathlessly spun as homes were being burned to the ground.
National Guard federalization the latest subject of judicial ping-pong: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that Donald Trump can federalize the Oregon National Guard, overturning a lower court’s decision, but the ruling still bars him from deploying them. The Ninth Circuit says it is acting in the interest of preserving the status quo as it takes more time to address the weighty legal questions involved. The court will hear oral arguments today as the Trump administration looks to have the lower court ruling fully overturned. The administration says it has the authority to federalize the Guard under the Posse Comitatus Act due to the failure of authorities in Chicago and Portland to quell anti-ICE demonstrations.
Big beautiful tax relief this spring? The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was passed in July was massive, so most Americans are unaware of everything it accomplished. One unexpected benefit of the bill will be larger-than-expected tax returns next April. Retroactive tax relief for 2025 is already in place, but for the large number of Americans who haven’t reduced their withholding, they won’t see the results until they receive what may be the largest tax returns in a decade. Taxpayers can expect to see $91 billion in refunds for the 2025 retroactive cuts, plus another $30 billion in reduced withholding for 2026. These cuts could average $1,000 per taxpayer. Contrary to the inevitable Democrat spin, these tax cuts will primarily benefit middle- and upper-middle-income filers who earn between $60,000 and $400,000, with caps preventing higher earners from seeing much relief.
Musk’s boycott of Netflix having an impact: On October 3, tech billionaire Elon Musk posted on X, “Netflix is deliberately choosing to pay people to created sexualized content for children. Freedom of speech should be respected, but this is PAID speech. Netflix is going out of their way and reaching into their wallet to push this.” He announced he canceled his subscription to the video streaming platform and encouraged others to join his boycott. Musk is not wrong in his criticism, as Netflix’s platform hosts a number of children’s programs that directly promote transgenderism and LGBTQ ideology, including the cartoon “Dead End: Paranormal Park.” Following Musk’s boycott, Netflix has seen a surge in canceled subscriptions, and its market cap has taken a $15 billion hit. Thus far, Netflix has not taken any action or made any public statements. Netflix executives may hope that ignoring the boycott will lead to it ending, but it appears to be growing instead.
Headlines
Inside the Hunter Biden-linked proposal to sell off land around the U.S. embassy in Romania (NY Post)
CUNY’s “Global Antifa” course encourages students to aid domestic terrorists (The Federalist)
Harvard hires drag queen as visiting professor in gender and sexuality studies (Fox News)
Humor: James Comey produces letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials saying he’s totally innocent (Babylon Bee)
Democrats are masters at gaslighting, doing one thing and blaming the other side.
They engage in what the Clintons derided as “the politics of personal destruction,” and then they complain that Republicans are the ones doing it. They shut down the government by blocking a continuing resolution, and they blame Republicans for not saving ObamaCare. They weaponized not only the Justice Department but many other government agencies, and now they’re aghast that Donald Trump is giving them a dose of their own medicine.
The big difference? Trump is up front and open about what he’s doing and how he’s going about it. Democrats pretend they’re holier than thou while they stab thou in the back.
Whereas they invented crimes to wage lawfare against him, he is ensuring the DOJ prosecutes those who unlawfully weaponized the previous DOJ to undermine his administration.
With that intro, let’s turn to The New York Times, which featured a story yesterday titled “How Trump Is Using the Justice Department to Target His Enemies.” The story doesn’t use the word “unprecedented,” but it’s strongly implied: “His calls for prosecutors to file criminal charges against his adversaries have eroded the Justice Department’s decadeslong tradition of independence from the White House and threatened the rule of law.”
Gosh, this has never happened before!
The story opens with a graphic showing the four people and one organization that Trump has indicted, investigated, or otherwise “targeted.” Leading that list is former FBI Director James Comey, who was arraigned in Virginia yesterday and pleaded not guilty of lying to Congress. The DOJ’s case isn’t exactly air-tight, and Comey will likely be acquitted, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t disgrace himself and the FBI in his politically weaponized tenure.
The Times huffs, “Each of the targets Mr. Trump has pursued through the Justice Department has denied wrongdoing, in statements or through lawyers.”
Criminals protest their innocence; film at 11.
Comey isn’t some angel who was minding his own business, looking for seashells when mean old Trump came along and targeted him. He was at the center of the cabal that conspired to launch a coup against President Trump in his first term, lying all the way about it.
The other subjects of Trump’s ire were likewise not innocent. New York Attorney General Letitia James waged lawfare against Candidate Trump on trumped-up charges. Now-Senator Adam Schiff was an architect of the impeachment efforts, two cases built on lies and distortions.
The day before the Times’s blockbuster, at least three Democrats expressed horror about all the norms Trump’s DOJ is supposedly breaking.
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) is “gravely concerned” at the idea that Trump may demand prosecution of “opponents or enemies.” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Anywhere But Vietnam) fretted that Trump “embodies” weaponization. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Chicago Mob) warned of “Trump’s long crusade to weaponize the federal government against his perceived political enemies.”
Durbin hysterically continued, “Never in the history of our country has a president so brazenly demanded the baseless prosecution of his rivals.” And then he accidentally admitted something: “And he doesn’t even try to hide it.”
Yeah, that’s what I said.
Democrats hide it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do it. Trump doesn’t mess with the pretense of trying to hide anything.
Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley expected Democrats to make such claims, and he was ready for them.
“I’ve heard them say that Joe Biden never targeted his political enemies,” Hawley began. “Joe Biden never directed his attorney general to target his political opponents. Huh? That’s interesting because I could have sworn that yesterday we learned that the FBI tapped my phone.”
Democrats think they can get away with their “unprecedented” hysterics because that phone tapping and so many other shenanigans were carried out by cutouts. It wasn’t Joe Biden who weaponized the DOJ, they insist. It wasn’t even Attorney General Merrick Garland. If anything happened, it was Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Well, Smith reported to Garland, who reported to Biden.
Hawley noted the weaponization of the DOJ and FBI against Catholics, pro-lifers, and parents at school board meetings, too. He added that “92 conservative organizations [were] put under surveillance.” In other words, it wasn’t the Trump DOJ targeting powerful people; it was the Biden DOJ targeting the defenseless.
It was Democrats screaming about “democracy” while trying to arrest, jail, and remove from the ballot the Republican presidential candidate.
“Gee, I don’t know,” Hawley said sarcastically to Attorney General Pam Bondi, “would you call that an example of weaponization?”
Bondi agreed, calling it “the ultimate weaponization” and promising it has ended.
I don’t always love the way Trump operates, and I’d love to see the president show much more constitutional and political restraint. I wish he wouldn’t stoop to the Democrats’ level. He certainly doesn’t embody Erika Kirk’s model of grace and forgiveness.
But he didn’t start us down this path. Spare me the outrage of this supposedly unprecedented assault on our institutions. Democrats weaponized and/or destroyed those institutions a long time ago, and now they don’t want to play the game by the rules they created. That’s laughably and outrageously hypocritical.
Emmy Griffin: The Public Housing Trap — When you disenfranchise neighborhoods and force unnatural community structures, it creates a hole from which those living in poverty cannot get out.
Samantha Koch: The Supreme Court Considers ‘Conversion Therapy’ — The irony is that so many opponents of using counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation advocate using hormones and surgery to change a person’s gender.
Thomas Gallatin: Feminist Antipathy Toward Conservative Female Leaders — Despite claiming to stand for helping women rise to be equal with men, feminists don’t like conservative women who succeed because it’s actually about ideology.
Patrick Hampton: Israel 101: An Unbreakable Promise From Almighty God — Understanding the Bible’s historical promises to Israel is about informed conversation, respectful citizenship, and recognizing how ancient texts still shape modern reality.
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email every Wednesday, update your subscription here.
Reader Comments
Editor’s Note: Each week we receive hundreds of comments and correspondences — and we read every one of them. Click here for a few thought-provoking comments about specific articles. The views expressed therein don’t necessarily reflect those of The Patriot Post.
Latest PodcastPopCon #117: ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ Isn’t AnimeNetflix’s “KPop Demon Hunters” — the animated, song-driven film mashing together K-pop, demon lore, and coming-of-age themes — is taking pop culture by storm.
BEST OF VIDEOS
The California Democrat Interview Disaster — Katie Porter, a Democrat representative running in California’s gubernatorial race, apparently doesn’t care for Trump voters.
NBC Anchor Delivers Bad News to Democrats — Democrat groups are preparing for a nightmare scenario if SCOTUS guts a key part of the Voting Rights Act — a very real possibility this term.
‘This War Is Being Lost’ — Douglas Murray discusses the anniversary of the October 7 attack and the state of peace talks between Israel and Hamas.
The Dark Reality of Digital IDs — Winston Marshall sits down with Silkie Carlo to discuss Keir Starmer’s announcement of mandatory digital IDs and what it means for the future of Britain’s freedoms.
What Is Autism? — Professor Sir Simon Baron-Cohen is a British clinical psychologist and world-renowned expert on autism.
SHORT CUTS
Blaming the Victim
“In the aftermath of [October 7, 2023], Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government launched a genocidal war. … Our government has been complicit through it all. This must end. The occupation and apartheid must end.” —Democrat NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
“Be presidential, Mr. President. Honor the office you serve in. Don’t be so deranged and political as to how you make decisions.” —Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Circling the Wagons
“They say that, on balance, he’s a better person to be attorney general.” —Rep. Nancy Pelosi regarding Jay Jones and whether he should bow out
Under the Mask
“The Jay Jones texts are so wild because he gets like five desperate pleas to walk it back and each time he’s just like no, this is what I believe, I want people who disagree with me to die and also their children.” —Spencer Klavan
For the Record
“[George Soros] and his ideas and his foundations are responsible for the destruction of the West. … And he has to pay for it.” —Tommy Robinson
“It begins with censorship. It moves to the destruction of statues and monuments. And it ends with the murder of people. The drive to silence speech doesn’t end at a podium’s edge or at the four corners of a page. It always advances toward the violent elimination of speakers. That is because the authoritarian impulse to silence speech is driven by a totalitarian desire to seize total power by any means necessary, up to and including the murder of one’s political opponents.” —Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testifying before the Senate about the Biden administration’s censorship
“While numerous conductors of public opinion surveys have been asking Americans whom they blame for the shutdown, relatively few pollsters have been asking Americans if they have suffered any harm or even noticed the absence of much of the federal government. Perhaps some pollsters don’t want to know the answers.” —James Freeman
If the Shoe Fits
“I’m getting calls from Democrats wanting to meet. I never even heard their names before, and they’re claiming to be leaders. The Democrats have no leader. They remind me of Somalia.” —Donald Trump
Inquiring Minds Want to Know
“Why do these Democratic-controlled cities invest such energy and passion in defending illegal immigration?” —Byron York
“Can CBS actually move to the center? And will that expose how tilted the other networks are every day? It must be a terrifying prospect for the badly named ‘mainstream media.’” —Tim Graham
Belly Laugh of the Day
“They can be impertinent little buttheads.” —Sen. John Kennedy on media reporters
And Last…
“I liked NYC better before we gave green cards to the intifada.” —White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller
ON THIS DAY in 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Watson held the first telephone conversation over outdoor wires, solely in Massachusetts; Bell was in Boston, and Watson was in Cambridge. It would take until 1915 before the first transcontinental phone call took place, also with Bell on one end of the line.
Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray for the protection of our uniformed Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Lift up your Patriot Post team and our mission to support and defend our legacy of American Liberty and our Republic’s Founding Principles, in order that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
With the government shutdown, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy is exposing all the strange, nonsensical initiatives Democrats want funded before it reopens. For as much as Democrats, like New York […] The post appeared first on The Western Journal .
Happy Thursday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Erdwelya found the hard seltzer crowd wanting when it came to discussions about asbestos alternatives or hot yoga.
There is something in the Dem water right now.
Trump Derangement Syndrome hasn’t made it into the current revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but I think it has a real shot to be there in future editions. We see the symptoms manifested in almost every Democrat in the upper ranks of the party, but yesterday was a real humdinger of TDS episodes.
For the longest time, it has appeared as if the Democrats’ only plan to battle back from their ignominious defeat in 2024 and fight the juggernaut that is the Trump 47 administration is to constantly drop f-bombs and hope that tantrums and coarseness would eventually appeal to someone outside of the mentally unwell Coastal Media Bubbles™.
It has become painfully obvious that there are no adults in the room to tell them that the strategy is flawed.
Yesterday, there were a few stories of different Democrats really not handling themselves well in public. We’ll start with a meltdown that House Minority Leader and Nancy Pelosi puppet Hakeem Jeffries had, which Matt wrote about:
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) just delivered a political smackdown to Hakeem Jeffries in the halls of Capitol Hill, and it was pretty epic. Footage of the exchange, which has been circulating on social media, shows Jeffries melting down in real time as Lawler methodically exposed the hypocrisy behind the Democrats’ government shutdown stunt.
It started with the usual performative nonsense from Jeffries.
“Did you get permission from your boss?” Jeffries asked, apparently convinced that every Republican takes marching orders from President Donald Trump. Lawler cut through the nonsense immediately. “Why don’t we sign on right now?” he said, offering a solution instead of the predictable Democratic lecture.
Matt details the entire thing and shares the video of the encounter. As Matt said, it was “performative nonsense.” Other than the f-bombs, the Democrats have only weakly scripted political Kabuki for the cameras. As I mentioned the other day, I think everything Jeffries does is controlled by Nancy Pelosi; Jeffries just doesn’t seem sharp enough to be handling this role on his own. All that he ended up accomplishing with this stunt was to make it clear that he isn’t doing any serious or substantive work to end this shutdown.
The next incident involved former member of Congress and current California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, a disturbed woman who’s always given off a strong “pulls the wings off of flies for fun” vibe. She also looks like she could star in Hocus Pocus 3 and not need any makeup. (Hey, I’m not an elected official, I’m an opinion writer. I can go low all I want to. It’s pretty on-brand for me, actually.)
There were actually two incidents this week involving Porter; the first was a petulant episode during an interview. As Victoria wrote in a VIP column, there is no way to get around the fact that Porter is a horrible person.
After that cry for help, an older video of Porter surfaced on Politico of her going off on a staffer for showing up in the background during an interview and getting in her shot. Anything that draws the viewers’ eyes from Porter during a televised interview is a blessing. Porter obviously doesn’t own a mirror and isn’t aware of that. The older video proves that Porter’s anger management issues have been a problem for a long time. Our sister site Twitchy has the expletive-laden video here.
It’s rare for Politico to dig up something like that for a hit piece on a Democrat. This could be a sign that Porter’s shtick is wearing thin even with Californians.
Finally, Kamala Harris once again made the unfortunate choice to go out in public after her second box of breakfast Franzia and remind everyone just how lucky this nation is that she no longer has a job. I know that I often write about Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Kamala Harris being drunk. I don’t do that because I’m a misogynist; I do it because I’m a professional entertainer who’s spent most of my adult life doing shows in nightclubs, and I know what drunk people look like.
Despite having risen to a higher political height than any other woman in American history, Harris has a penchant for acting like she’s a street tough. In an interview on Wednesday, Princess Cackles decided to one-up her f-bombing fellow Dems and say “MFers” in a slangy way that made it seem like she’d just been hanging out with some rappers. My RedState colleague Bob Hoge wrote about that. By the way, Harris dropped the MF-bomb while asserting that those of us on this side of the aisle are the real crazy ones.
This is kind of where Sylvia Plath would have gone if she had never paid her gas bill.
These people obviously need help. The nicest thing that any of us can do is work hard to make sure they don’t have real power so that they have the time to rest and work on their mental health. In the case of Dems like Jeffries who are currently in Congress, let’s try to make them as weak as possible so that their mental condition doesn’t worsen under the stress of responsibility.
The FBI director said: “When I was there today … we learned that the Chicago city streets have 110,000 gang members. That’s right. You heard me right. They had 1,200 shootings this year alone, 360 homicides.
President Trump’s description of Chicago as a war zone is grounded in stark data showing that more Americans were killed there than in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Between 2001 and 2016, the city recorded 8,229 homicides, surpassing total U.S. military deaths from Afghanistan (2,459 service members and 1,822 contractors) and Iraq (4,518 service members and 281 contractors), which together amounted to roughly 8,799 fatalities.
Even from 2016 to 2020, another 3,276 people were killed in Chicago. In the city’s most violent neighborhoods, such as Garfield Park, young men faced an annual firearm homicide rate of 1,277 per 100,000 in 2021–2022, more than triple the 395 per 100,000 risk faced by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Chicago, a self-declared sanctuary city, has deepened its crisis by refusing to enforce federal immigration law. Illinois is home to an estimated 511,000 undocumented immigrants, including about 183,000 in Chicago, roughly seven percent of the city’s population. Another 125,000 live in suburban Cook County and 151,000 in the surrounding collar counties. Between 2021 and 2023, Illinois’s unauthorized immigrant population grew by more than 75,000, one of the largest increases in the nation.
Despite this surge, state and city leaders have ordered police not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. At the same time, federal agents are facing escalating violence from protesters who block roads, surround ICE vehicles, throw rocks, and physically assault officers.
The Broadview Processing Center outside Chicago has become a hotspot for these confrontations. In one incident, ICE agents were boxed in by ten cars during a patrol, forcing them to abandon a damaged vehicle. More than 200 rioters later blocked the facility’s gates, and one was caught carrying a firearm. In another case, a woman was shot after allegedly trying to run down agents when they were surrounded.
Federal authorities warn that these attacks mirror a broader national trend of rising violence against immigration enforcement, with extremists in several states launching coordinated assaults on ICE personnel since June 2025.
These assaults are clear violations of federal, state, and local law, yet Illinois leaders continue to prohibit law enforcement from intervening. By doing so, they have failed to uphold their duty to protect public safety and the rule of law. This refusal to act, combined with the harboring of illegal immigrants and failure to protect federal officers, is why President Trump declared that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson “should be in jail.”
President Donald Trump escalated his confrontation with Illinois leaders this week, declaring that Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson “should be in jail” for failing to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. His comments came as the administration deployed Texas and Illinois National Guard troops to the Chicago area, part of a wider federal initiative to combat crime and enforce immigration law. The move drew sharp opposition from local officials and signaled one of the most direct showdowns yet between the White House and Democratic-run cities.
Governor Pritzker denounced the remarks as authoritarian and vowed to resist the deployment through every legal means available. “If you come for my people, you come through me,” he said at a press conference, accusing the president of intimidation. He urged residents to record federal actions on their phones to provide evidence for potential court challenges.
Mayor Johnson also condemned the president’s threats, saying, “This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” and pledged that he would not back down. Both leaders described the deployment as an “authoritarian march” against Democratic strongholds. Earlier in the week, Illinois filed suit to block the operation, citing past court rulings that limited similar federal interventions in Portland, Oregon.
Mayor Johnson failed to explain when he mistakenly believes that President Trump had previously “tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested.” Also, since the mayor is violating the terms of his office by failing to protect the public and is openly harboring criminals wanted on federal charges, then arresting him for a crime would be justified.
It is also both worrying and telling that the governor and mayor call ICE enforcement an “authoritarian march,” as immigration laws already exist, which state that a visa, residency, and work permit are required to remain in the United States, and that violators will be arrested and deported.
Chicago enforces other laws such as payment of property taxes and requirements to register one’s car, so why is it considered authoritarian to enforce immigration law?
Trump has warned that he may invoke the Insurrection Act if governors or mayors continue to resist federal authority. The law, rarely used since the 1992 Los Angeles riots, allows the president to deploy active-duty military personnel inside the United States to enforce federal law and restore order.
On October 6th, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order prohibiting federal immigration authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from using any city-owned or city-controlled property for civil immigration enforcement. The ban applies to all city lots, garages, and vacant spaces, including those belonging to Chicago Public Schools. It forbids federal agents from using these areas as staging or processing sites for immigration operations.
In response, the White House condemned the measure as “a disgusting betrayal of every law-abiding citizen.” By declaring city spaces as “ICE-free zones,” Johnson is protecting “criminal illegal alien predators” over the safety of Chicago families. Johnson defended his decision, insisting that if Congress would not check federal immigration enforcement, “then Chicago will.”
President Trump has said he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act if courts, governors, or mayors obstruct federal action to protect ICE agents or curb violent unrest. “If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up—sure, I’d do that,” he said earlier this week. White House officials describe the process as “climbing an escalatory ladder,” emphasizing that all other options will be exhausted first.
The Insurrection Act has been used by presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson during the Civil Rights era to enforce desegregation orders when local authorities refused to act. Trump’s advisors, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, argue that the current wave of obstruction by Democratic officials meets the same threshold, an organized defiance of federal law.
CNBC’s Joe Kernan hits House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with brutal facts on Schumer shutdown, leaving Jeffries embarrassed. Credit: CNBC screenshot
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries continues to embarrass himself in his efforts to convince Americans that Republicans are responsible for the government shutdown caused by him and his fellow Democrats.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Schumer Shutdown took effect at 12:01 am on October 1 after two measures to avert the government shutdown failed in the Senate.
The measures needed 60 votes to pass. The GOP-backed measure failed to pass in a 55-45 vote – Rand Paul voted with the Democrats.
The Democrat Party and Paul decided to put the welfare of illegal aliens, higher taxes by repealing Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill, surgeries for transgender minors, and more garbage ahead of keeping the government running.
Several more GOP votes have been held to reopen the government, but Democrats have remained firm in their obstinacy.
On Thursday, Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernan confronted Jeffries with a few brutal facts after the House Democratic leader recited his failed talking points. Kernan noted there was an election Republicans won, and because of that, they were to pass legislation such as Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Kernan noted that trying to reverse such legislation in a government funding bill was extraordinarily hypocritical because if the GOP tried to shut down the government under legislation passed under the Biden regime, Jeffries would be screaming.
The CNBC co-host then said this was not how government works and that the bill currently on the table has bipartisan support in the Senate.
Jeffries had no answer for this and could only whine about Republicans not engaging in bipartisan negotiations and that they could reopen the government at any time.
Of course, he neglected to say that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, should one side decide to filibuster. This is what Democrats are doing right now.
Kernan’s fellow co-host, Becky Quick, also told Jeffries that he could engage in bipartisan negotiations after the government reopens, noting the number of Republicans anxious to make a deal on the Obamacare subsidies.
This was certainly not precisely the interview Jeffries expected.
WATCH:
BREAKING: Hakeem Jeffries was just EMBARRASSED for holding the government hostage…holy smokes. This was bad.
CNBC: “There was an ELECTION. Republicans were able to pass the Big Beautiful Bill. To then say, ‘We don’t like that, so we’re gonna shut down the government until… pic.twitter.com/wlcxytaZC6
KERNAN: There was an election, and the Republicans were put in a position where they were able to pass the Big Beautiful Bill.
To then say, ‘We don’t like that, so we’re gonna shut down the government until you take back all the things you duly passed through legislation…If the Republicans tried to do that to the Inflation Reduction Act, or any of the Biden acts, shut down the government because we don’t like it, not pay military, not allow the government to open until you do what we want, after an election when the American people put Democrats in power, you’d be going crazy.
You’d be going crazy about using a shutdown of the federal government on a continuing resolution to get what you want, cause you don’t like what Republicans did.
“It’s not how it works. It’s bad, it’s bad precedent…And you’re talking about the House? You’ve already passed this.
The Senate has a bill to reopen the government right now with five more Democrats.
JEFFRIES: What is bad precedent is the Republican refusal to engage in bipartisan negotiations. What is bad precendent is Republicnas embarking on a my way or the highway approach from the beginning of this Congress.
Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency…So if the government shuts down, they’ve made the government shutdown.
They could reopen it right now.
KERNAN: How could they do that?
JEFFRIES: I just explained it. They want to keep it closed.
Cruelty from the very beginning has been the point. The responsible thing to do is to sit down and negotiate a bipartisan path forward.
QUICK: Minority Leader, can you do that while the government is open? That’s the offer on the table.
House Speaker Mike Johnson passed a clean CR. There’s nothing to politick with because there’s nothing to take out.
You can reopen the government and have the conversations (on health care). It sounds like there is a willing party on the other side (Republicans) who see this as an issue in their district as well.
JEFFRIES: Marjorie Taylor Greene has made clear that this is an issue Republicans have ignored throughout this year, and it needs to be addressed right now.
Democrats and their left-wing media lapdogs beclowned themselves after their manufactured outrage claiming “climate change” had caused the Pacific Palisades fire earlier this year turned out to be a big, […] The post appeared first on The Western Journal .
President Trump meets with his Cabinet at the White House as the government shutdown enters its ninth day and Israel and Hamas agree to end the war in Gaza.
Over 10,000 personnel will have to be sent home across nine missions globally, according to Reuters and AP
The United Nations will have to cut roughly a quarter of its peacekeeping personnel in the coming months due to funding shortfalls, in particular caused by a lack of US financing, Reuters and AP reported on Wednesday, citing sources.
A senior unnamed UN official cited by Reuters stated that the organization “will have to repatriate… around 25% of our total peacekeeping troops and police, as well as their equipment,” adding that a large number of civilian staff will also be affected.
The reduction equates to 13,000-14,000 military and police out of more than 50,000 deployed, with the UN support office in Somalia also impacted, according to AP. In addition, the peacekeeping budget will be cut by about 15% this year, the outlet added.
Operations in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Kosovo, Cyprus, the Central African Republic, Western Sahara, the Golan Heights demilitarized zone, and Abyei will be affected, UN officials told Reuters.
US funding uncertainty is central to the UN’s financial strains, with Washington – which accounts for more than 26% of mandatory UN peacekeeping financing – being $1.5 billion in arrears even before the new financial year began on July 1, a Reuters source claimed. He added that the total US outstanding bills now exceed $2.8 billion. At the same time, the UN expects a $680 million US payment shortly, according to the agency.
During his second term, US President Donald Trump has sought to trim foreign expenditure, and in August canceled about $800 million in peacekeeping funds for 2024-2025. His budget office has proposed eliminating US peacekeeping funding in 2026.
Last month, media reports indicated that the UN was facing the need to cut $500 million from next year’s budget and furlough 20% of its staff, with the organization poised to axe 3,000 jobs due to US funding uncertainty.
UN peacekeepers – often called blue berets or blue helmets – are deployed to help stabilize conflict zones and support humanitarian efforts. However, critics say the missions are frequently underfunded, slow to respond, and constrained by weak mandates that limit action when violence flares.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 