Author Archives: Truth2Freedom

About Truth2Freedom

Truth2Freedom Ministry Director

June 23 The Depth of Love

Above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”

1 Peter 4:8

Christians are to love to the limit, which involves covering a “multitude of sins.” Sin must be dealt with but must also be forgiven. That’s what “cover” implies. We are to put a blanket over past sin that has been dealt with.

Examine yourself. Do you hold a grudge against someone in your house? If you do, remember that Jesus already paid the penalty for whatever that person did wrong. Your inability to forgive belies your love. And if a lack of forgiveness is characteristic of your life, you may not be a Christian.

Inevitably, those who have the greatest sense of forgiveness are quickest to forgive others. The people who know they’ve been forgiven much are able to forgive much. I hope that’s true of you.[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. (2001). Truth for today : a daily touch of God’s grace (p. 192). Nashville, Tenn.: J. Countryman.

June 23, 2018 Morning Verse Of The Day

4  Sing to God, sing praises to his name;
lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts;
his name is the LORD;
exult before him!
5  Father of the fatherless and protector of widows
is God in his holy habitation.
6  God settles the solitary in a home;
he leads out the prisoners to prosperity,
but the rebellious dwell in a parched land.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ps 68:4–6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

68:5 The Lord is not limited to clouds and storms; He also meets the needs of the helpless. For all people, He is in His holy habitation, dispensing justice.[1]

68:4–6 It is a time to sing praises to God and to clear a way for the Lord in the deserts (MT, see NKJV margin, cf. Isa. 40:3; 62:10). His name is YAH, the covenant-keeping Jehovah; He is worthy of endless praise. Though He is infinitely high, yet He is intimately near to the friendless and the dispossessed. As the God of all grace, He is father of the fatherless, defender of widows. He provides the warmth and fellowship of a happy home for the lonely, and as for those who have been unjustly condemned to prison, He leads them into prosperity with shouts of joy.

With the rebellious, it’s a different story; they are consigned to a desolate wilderness.

These introductory verses, then, say in the words of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” “Our God is marching on,” and contrast the results of His march on the righteous and on rebels.

Although it is not noticeable in the English version, seven names of God are woven into the texture of this Psalm: Elohim (v. 1), Yah (v. 4), Jehovah (v. 10), El Shaddai (v. 14), Yah Elohim (v. 18), Adonai (v. 19), and Jehovah Adonai (v. 20).[2]

68:4–6. David invited the people to praise in song the One who rides on the clouds (cf. v. 33; 104:3; Isa. 19:1), a poetic description of God’s exalted majesty, chosen as a polemic against a similar epithet for Baal. God is worthy of praise because of His triumphant work: He delivers and comforts the downtrodden (fatherless and widows) and oppressed (prisoners), while leaving the rebellious desolate in the desert.[3]

68:4–6 Exhortation to Sing to God. The faithful are to sing to God because he has shown himself kind, especially to helpless people (fatherless, or “orphans”; widows, cf. 146:9; Deut. 10:18; James 1:27; solitary; prisoners). The rebellious (i.e., those against God’s gracious covenant), however, he exiles to a parched land: they may not dwell among his people.[4]

68:5 A father to orphans Portrays God as one who protects the most vulnerable. The ot law contained special provisions to protect orphans and widows, who were often oppressed or mistreated (Exod 22:22–24; Deut 24:19–21). God’s provision for them reveals His compassion, as well as His justice (Deut 10:18).

is God in his holy habitation Probably refers to the temple. See note on Ps 26:8.[5]

68:5 fatherless … widows. Widows and orphans were particularly vulnerable in ancient society. God commanded Israel to care for them (Ex. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; Ruth 4:14, 15).[6]

68:5–6 Fatherless (see note at 10:12–15) and widows represented the weakest and most vulnerable members of society who were often the most oppressed (94:6). The Lord himself took on the role of their defender (Dt 10:18).[7]

[1] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 692). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

[2] MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (pp. 649–650). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[3] Ross, A. P. (1985). Psalms. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 843). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[4] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1017). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

[5] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Ps 68:5). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[6] Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (p. 793). Orlando, FL; Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries.

[7] Warstler, K. R. (2017). Psalms. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 874). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Paul Craig Roberts: “The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance” | Zero Hedge

“To sum this up, the Western mind, and the minds of the Atlanticist Integrationist Russians and pro-American Chinese youth, are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there is no connection to reality…”

In this column I am going to use three of the current top news stories to illustrate the disconnect that is everywhere in the Western mind.

Let us begin with the family separation issue. The separation of children from immigrant/refugee/asylum parents has caused such public outcry that President Trump has backed off his policy and signed an executive order terminating family separation.

The horror of children locked up in warehouses operated by private businesses making a profit off of US taxpayers, while parents are prosecuted for illegal entry, woke even self-satisfied “exceptional and indispensable” Americans out of their stupor. It is a mystery that the Trump regime chose to discredit its border enforcement policy by separating families. Perhaps the policy was intended to deter illegal immigration by sending the message that if you come to America your children will be taken from you.

The question is: How is it that Americans can see and reject the inhumane border control policy and not see the inhumanity of family destruction that has been the over-riding result of Washington’s destruction in whole or part of seven or eight countries in the 21st century?

Millions of people have been separated from families by death inflicted by Washington, and for almost two decades protests have been almost nonexistent. No public outcry stopped George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump from clear and indisputable illegal acts defined in international law established by the US itself as war crimes against the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. We can add to this an eighth example: The military attacks by the US armed and supported neo-Nazi puppet state of Ukraine against the breakaway Russian provinces.

The massive deaths, destruction of towns, cities, infrastructure, the maiming, physical and mental, the dislocation that has sent millions of refugees fleeing Washington’s wars to overrun Europe, where governments consist of a collection of idiot stooges who supported Washington’s massive war crimes in the Middle East and North Africa, produced no outcry comparable to Trump’s immigration policy.

How can it be that Americans can see inhumanity in the separation of families in immigration enforcement but not in the massive war crimes committed against peoples in eight countries? Are we experiencing a mass psychosis form of cognitive dissonance?

We now move to the second example: Washington’s withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

On November 2, 1917, two decades prior to the holocaust attributed to National Socialist Germany, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild that Great Britain supported Palestine becoming a Jewish homeland. In other words, the corrupt Balfour dismissed the rights and lives of the millions of Palestinians who had occupied Palestine for two millennia or more. What were these people compared to Rothschild’s money? They were nothing to the British Foreign Secretary.

Balfour’s attitude toward the rightful inhabitants of Palestine is the same as the British attitude toward the peoples in every colony or territory over which British power prevailed. Washington learned this habit and has consistently repeated it.

Just the other day Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the crazed and insane lapdog of Israel, announced that Washington had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, because it is “a cesspool of political bias” against Israel.

What did the UN Human Rights Council do to warrant this rebuke from Israel’s agent, Nikki Haley? The Human Rights Council denounced Israel’s policy of murdering Palestinians—medics, young children, mothers, old women and old men, fathers, teenagers.

To criticize Israel, no matter how great and obvious is Israel’s crime, means that you are an anti-semite and a “holocaust denier.” For Nikki Haley and Israel, this places the UN Human Rights Council in the Hitler-worshipping Nazi ranks.

The absurdity of this is obvious, but few, if any, can detect it. Yes, the rest of the world, with the exception of Israel, has denounced Washington’s decision, not only Washington’s foes and the Palestinians, but also Washington’s puppets and vassals as well.

To see the disconnect, it is necessary to pay attention to the wording of the denunciations of Washington.

A spokesperson for the European Union said that Washington’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council “risks undermining the role of the US as a champion and supporter of democracy on the world stage.” Can anyone image a more idiotic statement? Washington is known as a supporter of dictatorships that adhere to Washington’s will. Washington is known as a destroyer of every Latin American democracy that elected a president who represented the people of the country and not the New York banks, US commercial interests, and US foreign policy.

Name one place where Washington has been a supporter of democracy. Just to speak of the most recent years, the Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras and imposed its puppet. The Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine and imposed a neo-Nazi regime. Washington overthrew the governments in Argentina and Brazil, is trying to overthrow the government in Venezuela, and has Bolivia in its crosshairs along with Russia and Iran.

Margot Wallstrom, Sweden’s Foreign Minister, said: “It saddens me that the US has decided to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. It comes at a time when the world needs more human rights and a stronger UN – not the opposite.” Why in the world does Wallstrom think that the presence of Washington, a known destroyer of human rights—just ask the millions of refugees from Washington’s war crimes overrunning Europe and Sweden—on the Human Rights Council would strengthen rather than undermine the Council? Wallstrom’s disconnect is awesome. It is so extreme as to be unbelievable.

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, spoke for the most fawning of all of Washington’s vassals when she said that she was concerned by the UN Human Rights Council’s “anti-Israel bias.” Here you have a person so utterly brainwashed that she is unable to connect to anything real.

The third example is the “trade war” Trump has launched against China. The Trump regime’s claim is that due to unfair practices China has a trade surplus with the US of nearly $400 billion. This vast sum is supposed to be due to “unfair practices” on China’s part. In actual fact, the trade deficit with China is due to Apple, Nike, Levi, and to the large number of US corporations who produce offshore in China the products that they sell to Americans. When the offshored production of US corporations enter the US, they are counted as imports.

I have been pointing this out for many years going back to my testimony before the US Congress China Commission. I have written numerous articles published almost everywhere. They are summarized in my 2013 book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

The presstitute financial media, the corporate lobbyists, which includes many “name” academic economists, and the hapless American politicians whose intellect is almost non-existent are unable to recognize that the massive US trade deficit is the result of jobs offshoring. This is the level of utter stupidity that rules America.

In The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I exposed the extraordinary error made by Matthew J. Slaughter, a member of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, who incompetently claimed that for every US job offshored two US jobs were created. I also exposed as a hoax a “study” by Harvard University professor Michael Porter for the so-called Council on Competitiveness, a lobby group for offshoring, that made the extraordinary claim that the US work force was benefitting from the offshoring of their high productivity, high value-added jobs.

The idiot American economists, the idiot American financial media, and the idiot American policymakers still have not comprehended that jobs offshoring destroyed America’s economic prospects and pushed China to the forefront 45 years ahead of Washington’s expectations.

*  *  *

To sum this up, the Western mind, and the minds of the Atlanticist Integrationist Russians and pro-American Chinese youth, are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there is no connection to reality.

There is the real world and there is the propagandistic made-up world that covers over the real world and serves special interests. My task is to get people out of the made-up world and into the real world. Support my efforts.

— Read on

Americans say nearly two-thirds of news outlets are biased, almost half of news is inaccurate: poll | TheBlaze

A new Gallup poll shows Americans believe 62 percent of news outlets – print, television, and radio – are biased. People believe a majority of the news is accurate, but they still believe about 44 percent is inaccurate, according to the poll.

The survey asked 1,440 Gallup panel members to delve into “exactly how much problematic information” appears in traditional news outlets and on social media.

Thirty-nine percent of the news is comprised of misinformation, meaning it’s presented as true but is either false or misleading, according to those surveyed. And 65 percent of news on social media is seen as misinformation.

Americans: Much Misinformation, Bias, Inaccuracy in News (Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup) details:

— (@OpinionToday) June 20, 2018

How do Republicans and Democrats differ on news?

Republicans and Democrats are sharply divided about the accuracy and bias of certain news organizations, particularly for Fox News, Breitbart News, CNN, and MSNBC, according to the Gallup website.

The poll found that Republicans believe 15 of the 17 major news sources are biased and that most news organizations are also inaccurate. In contrast, Democrats believe all but two major news organizations are accurate and most news outlets are biased but not inaccurate.

According to the poll:

Of 17 major newspapers, network or cable news stations, or internet news sites evaluated in the survey, Republicans see all but two — Fox News and The Wall Street Journal — as biased. And Republicans were about evenly divided as to whether Fox and The Wall Street Journal are biased or unbiased.

Republicans also see most news organizations as inaccurate rather than accurate, with Fox being a notable exception. In contrast, Democrats think all of the major news organizations, other than Fox and Breitbart News, are accurate. Democrats believe more news outlets are biased than inaccurate.”

Also, 71 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans believe the spread of inaccurate information online is “a major problem,” according to the website.

Anything else?

Other findings from the survey show that U.S. adults believe about 80 percent of news on social media is biased and 64 percent of news on social media is inaccurate.

More than eight in 10 people reported feeling “angry or bothered” when they see biased information. More than nine in 10 reported feeling the same way about inaccurate information.
— Read on

World Health Organization Says Transgender Identity No Longer a “Mental Health Disorder” – But Playing Too Many Video Games Is! – The Trumpet Online

The World Health Organization’s international list of diseases is getting an update.

In its revised International Classification of Diseasesreleased Monday, the WHO removed transgender identity as a mental health disorder and added gaming disorder to the list. Recategorizing transgender as a sexual health condition is aimed at cutting stigma and improving quality of care, says the WHO.

The WHO first considered declassifying “gender incongruence” in July 2016, The New York Times reports, but didn’t make the change officially until the Monday release of the ICD-11, the WHO’s first revision to its list of diseases in 28 years. Over the past few decades, transgender identity has hopped from a “sexual deviation” to “gender dysphoria” in the DSM mental disorder handbook used by psychologists. Now, it’s only considered a disorder, per 2013’s DSM-5, if a transgender person experiences distress or dysfunction.

Gaming disorder, characterized as an addiction to gaming, also made the WHO’s new list. A version called internet gaming disorder first appeared in the DSM-5.

The ICD-11 goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, so health professionals can use the next few years to get ready for the switch. But the world isn’t required to and probably won’t adopt the new classifications immediately, says the WHO. Some countries are still stuck on the eighth and ninth editions of the ICD, and the U.S. didn’t switch to the ICD-10 until 2015. Kathryn Krawczyk
— Read on

The Holy Spirit Of The Bible Vs. The Spirit We Sing About | The Reformed Collective

I love the desire that many people have to worship in a more trinitarian sense—meaning preaching, singing, and praying that demonstrates our belief in a God who is “one in essence and three in person.” We must remember though, that just because a song is popular does not mean that it is Biblical. We must join our zeal with knowledge for our songs to be fruitful.

Christians are, by biblical necessity, trinitarian. We believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One of the ways our God calls us to worship Him is through song—especially singing in the gathering of the local church.

The power of the music we sing

For many, the term “worship” only means singing, when the word worship encompasses far more than 3 songs we sing at Church on Sunday. It also encompasses obedience, communion, prayer, scripture reading, and more. Though we overemphasize musical worship in some ways, we also devalue it. We overemphasize musical worship by often making its “quality” the biggest factors that people use when choosing a local church.

Though we are hyper-focused on music being “engaging,” we devalue musical worship by reducing it to little more than a spiritual pep rally. Corporate singing turns into a product that we consume—if it’s up to our standard.

The songs we sing, and how we sing them, shape us—sometimes more deeply than the sermons we hear. Because of this, we should be careful that the songs we sing about God (and to God) are truthful in what they say about Him—Father, Son, or Spirit. There are some songs, albeit popular, that we should give greater thought to before singing.

Maintaining balance

I love the desire that many people have to worship in a more trinitarian sense—meaning preaching, singing, and praying that demonstrates our belief in a God who is “one in essence and three in person.” We must remember though, that just because a song is popular does not mean that it is Biblical. We must join our zeal with knowledge for our songs to be fruitful.

Focus on the clear, not the catchy

We shouldn’t sing things about God we made up, just because they are catchy. When we sing about the Holy Spirit, we should focus on the attributes on which scripture focuses. It is to our own disservice that many songs about the Holy Spirit reduce Him to a heavenly force or a rush of emotion.

Respectfully, popular songs like “Holy Spirit” or “Spirit of the Living God” fall short in this regard. They get stuck using vague language about things we want the Holy Spirit to do instead of anchoring the lyrics in God’s character and work revealed in scripture.

Holy Spirit, You are welcome here

Come flood this place and fill the atmosphere

Your glory, God, is what our hearts long for

To be overcome by Your presence, Lord

Holy Spirit, Bryan and Katie Torwalt

These words can feel powerful, but it’s not even clear what we mean by it.

Read More
— Read on

America’s Military Drops A Bomb Every 12 Minutes, And No One Is Talking About It | Zero Hedge

“We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response, there’s nothing but a ghostly silence.”

We live in a state of perpetual war, and we never feel it. While you get your gelato at the hip place where they put those cute little mint leaves on the side, someone is being bombed in your name. While you argue with the 17-year-old at the movie theater who gave you a small popcorn when you paid for a large, someone is being obliterated in your name. While we sleep and eat and make love and shield our eyes on a sunny day, someone’s home, family, life and body are being blown into a thousand pieces in our names.

Once every 12 minutes.

The United States military drops an explosive with a strength you can hardly comprehend once every 12 minutes. And that’s odd, because we’re technically at war with—let me think—zero countries. So that should mean zero bombs are being dropped, right?

Hell no! You’ve made the common mistake of confusing our world with some sort of rational, cogent world in which our military-industrial complex is under control, the music industry is based on merit and talent, Legos have gently rounded edges (so when you step on them barefoot, it doesn’t feel like an armor-piercing bullet just shot straight up your sphincter), and humans are dealing with climate change like adults rather than burying our heads in the sand while trying to convince ourselves that the sand around our heads isn’t getting really, really hot.

You’re thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.

Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly out of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that’s not a typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn’t get into the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President George W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the international community.

Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen—countries the U.S. was neither at war with nor had ongoing conflicts with. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk that went something like, “Wait a second. We’re bombing in countries outside of war zones? Is it possible that’s a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) … Nah. Whichever president follows Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some sort) and will therefore stop this madness.”

We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it’s first waking up in the morning.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack Obama there were “563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. …”

It’s not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific violation of international law and global norms. It’s also the morally reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we’re doing and what the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report” warned us about. (Humans are very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we’d listened to “1984,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of the National Security Agency. If we listened to “The Terminator,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of drone warfare. And if we’d listened to “The Matrix,” we wouldn’t have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of plastic waste. … But you know, who’s counting?)

There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon’s daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention it, the underlying sentiment was, “Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while he’s OK’ing endless destruction. He’s like the Steve McQueen of aerial death.”

And let’s take a moment to wipe away the idea that our “advanced weaponry” hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it, “According to the C.I.A.’s own documents, the people on the ‘kill list,’ who were targeted for ‘death-by-drone,’ accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone strikes.”

Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five points just for spelling your name right.

But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush—it was child’s play. DeGraw again:

“[Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by 30,000 bombs and 2 countries.”

You have to admit that’s impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.

However, we now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.

Trump’s military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.

He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that’s behaving like Lil Waynecrossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back, and are like, “What the fuck did you just do? I was gone for like, a second!”

Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour – every hour of every day. That averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.

And which is more outrageous—the crazy amount of death and destruction we are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump’s flaws. They say he’s a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally accurate) – but they don’t criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them killing 98 percent non-targets.

When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget—as we saw with the $21 trillion—and you have a president with no interest in overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then you end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running out of bombs.

Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those innocent civilians from … farming? Think of all the goats that will be allowed to go about their days.

And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be “unaccountable.”

Journalist Witney Webb wrote in February, “Shockingly, more than 80 percent of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.’s own documents have shown that they are not even aware of who they are killing—avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming all those in the strike zone as enemy combatants.”

That’s right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they’re enemy combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. … Want me to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.

This is not about Trump, even though he’s a maniac. It’s not about Obama, even though he’s a war criminal. It’s not about Bush, even though he has the intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven’t told a Bush joke in about eight years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I’ll get back into that.)

This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.

Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has gained some traction. Let’s get another one started: #121BombsADay.

One every 12 minutes.

Do you know where they’re hitting? Who they’re murdering? Why? One hundred and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away – in your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size popcorn at the movie theater.

We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response, there’s nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against humanity.

— Read on

Commentary: Stop using immigrant children as political pawns | TheBlaze

According to the Department of Homeland Security, from mid-April through May, 1,995 children were separated from their parents after illegally attempting to enter the United States. Although many of these separations were very brief — something the left-wing press has no interest in highlighting — there have been instances in which detained parents and children have been kept apart for a prolonged period while the immigration system worked through the thousands of people entering the country illegally every month.

These cases are undeniably tragic, especially in those instances when law-abiding families are genuinely interested in coming to America to enjoy our liberties and numerous economic opportunities, a position President Donald Trump has repeatedly acknowledged — including on June 20, when he announced he plans to issue an executive order to end the controversial policy.

Although Democrats in Congress and liberal pundits might claim their devotion to human rights is what forced Trump to end this controversial policy, the truth is Democrats are far more interested in using immigrant families, especially children, as political pawns than they are helping people or actually solving the country’s illegal immigration crisis.

This is evident from the fact Democrats couldn’t manage to muster even a little outrage at the Obama administration when it was in power, despite the fact it also temporarily locked children away from their families.

If Democrats truly wanted to help these kids by changing the laws on the books, they easily could. Conservative Republicans have been clamoring for immigration reform for decades, and they would have no problem fixing this and a number of other important immigration problems (including a resolution for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) in exchange for an agreement to build a border wall and to end the absurd practice of chain migration.

And yet, when Republicans announced they were crafting legislation to end the family separation policy (with no additional strings attached), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he and his comrades in the Senate had no interest in solving the problem through the legislative process. Instead of using their constitutional authority to change laws, Schumer and other congressional Democrats demanded the Trump administration ignore existing law and issue an executive order halting the policy.

Why? Because, according to Schumer, immigration legislation almost never gets approved in Congress.

“Let’s hope the president does the right thing and solves the problem, which he can do,” Schumer said. “That’s the simple, easiest and most likely way this will happen. How many times has immigration legislation passed in this Congress? How many times? Zero.”

Of course, what Schumer didn’t say is that the reason legislation almost never passes is because the Democrats refuse to approve any legislation that includes an extensive border wall, or anything else resembling real border security. This, and every other immigration debate, has nothing to do with helping children, fighting racism, or making America a more welcoming place for immigrants. It’s all about one thing and one thing only: votes.

Democrats believe that if they can keep the flow of illegal immigration steady over the next couple of decades, the children of those immigrants, many of whom will be born or become American citizens, will feel obligated to support the Democratic Party. Democrats also regularly use illegal immigration as a political weapon with which they can hurl accusations of racism against anyone, no matter how reasonable, who wants to control immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s former communications director, admitted the political importance of immigration for Democrats’ political future in a January memo for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in which she said, “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend ‘Dreamers,’ that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” she added.

Democrats didn’t always feel this way about immigration. Not so long ago, many in the Democratic Party argued illegal immigration causes significant societal and economic problems, including Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In his 1995 State of the Union Address, Bill Clinton — who, by the current standards applied in the immigration debate, would be considered a horrific racist — said, “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

In 2004, Hillary Clinton told WABC-AM radio, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them.”

Even Chicago’s leftist mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who is now fighting rigorously with the Trump administration to impede the enforcement of immigration laws, advised President Clinton in 1996 to be tougher on illegal immigration so he could “claim and achieve record deportations of criminal aliens.”

What explains Democrats’ dramatic change of heart about illegal immigration if it’s not about political gain?

However uncomfortable it may be to hear for the left, illegal immigration is unfair, inhumane, and creates numerous unnecessary ethical problems. Many illegal immigrants are abused and mistreated by employers, who know they are unlikely to report them to the authorities out of fear of being deported.

Illegal immigrants are commonly taken advantage of by con men who get paid thousands of dollars to herd families across the U.S. border, often in dangerous, and sometimes deadly, conditions. Many women and children are sexually abused while trying to make their way across the border, and some girls end up trapped in sex trafficking rings.

Even those immigrants who make it across the border and find jobs are, by the very nature of living in the modern United States, inclined to break other laws just to live their day-to-day lives. One in the country illegally can’t drive, work, or benefit from most social services without breaking some other U.S. law.

And this doesn’t include the many problems caused for American citizens by immigrants who come to the United States illegally and then commit violent crimes or engage in other dangerous activities. Even if this group is relatively small compared to the total number of immigrants entering America, no citizen should be put at risk by a dangerous criminal who shouldn’t have been able to come here in the first place.

All these problems, and many more, are completely avoidable. America needs a border wall and a well-funded border protection agency. We need humane laws that ensure immigrants who come here do so legally, pay taxes, and are held responsible if they break our laws. We need an immigration system that makes it possible for well-intentioned immigrant families who love freedom, pay taxes, and want to become American citizens to do so, but that also keeps out violent gangs, drugs, and other criminals who want to do us harm.

Only in a society in which immigrants are used as political tools rather than treated as people are these reforms considered radical.
— Read on

Crying babies, dying babies and media deception – WND

Michael Brown covers recent press manipulation through use of images, lies

The technique is proven and effective. Put a moving, highly effective, propagandistic photo on the front page (or cover) of your story. Cause a moral outrage in the public. Then, several days (or even weeks) later, print a retraction somewhere in the middle of your publication where few will find it: “We regret publishing a picture with a misleading caption.” It works like a charm!
— Read on

Best-Seller ‘Jesus Calling’ Is Built on Falsehood, Says Christian Author Randy Alcorn

Author Randy Alcorn has been hesitant to express his concerns about the best-seller devotional Jesus Calling by author Sarah Young. But given its popularity and its recent win as 2018 Christian Book of the Year, Alcorn is now speaking out.

The book is not full of heresies, he clarified. But he indicated that it is wrong for Young to portray her thoughts as if they were the real words of Jesus Christ.   While noting that he does not want to argue that “God doesn’t or can’t speak to you or others,” his big problem with Jesus Calling — which combined with its spinoffs have sold more than 25 million copies worldwide — is that Young presents text as if it were Jesus’ direct words for others.

— Read on

June 23 Integrity Promotes a Righteous Reputation

“Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him. Then these men said, ‘We shall not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God.’ ”

Daniel 6:4–5


Live so as to silence your critics.

Whenever God exalts a righteous person, there will be those who are jealous and who criticize. Sometimes, as in Daniel’s case, the jealousy turns to bitter opposition. But Daniel’s accusers had a problem: try as they may, they could find no ground of accusation against him. He was blameless and above reproach in his character and political dealings. Their only option was to somehow indict him for being totally committed to God. What a wonderful testimony to his faithfulness!

When an individual has served in office as long as Daniel had and his enemies can bring no charges of wrongdoing against him, he or she must be a person of great integrity and personal purity. That was the strength of Daniel’s character, and God wants you to have that kind of character as well.

There will always be those who want to discredit you. Even if they aren’t jealous of your position, they’ll resent your Christian faith and will scrutinize your attitudes and actions in an attempt to tarnish your reputation. How will your character hold up under that kind of scrutiny?

The apostle Peter wrote, “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12). That means you must live the kind of life that silences your critics and refutes their accusations. When you do, some of them might even come to Christ.


Suggestions for Prayer: Ask the Lord to guard your testimony and to minister saving grace to anyone who might seek to discredit you.

For Further Study: Read Philippians 1:12–18. What was the apostle Paul’s perspective on those who were envious of him? Do you share his perspective?[1]

[1] MacArthur, J. (1997). Strength for today. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.