The following video is a biblical examination of the problems with identifying with a particular political party. The purpose of this video is not to teach a prohibition of, or disparage the act of, voting, but to show, from Scripture, the problems with identifying with the two polarizing major political parties, in order to highlight Scripture’s command to be holy as Christ, the Lord, is holy.
“Crime of the Century”: How Big Pharma Fueled the Opioid Crisis That Killed 500,000 and Counting – by Democracy Now
As the U.S. continues to deal with the fallout from devastating the opioid epidemic that has killed over 500,000 people in the country since 1999, we speak with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, whose latest documentary, “The Crime of the Century,” looks at the pharmaceutical industry’s methods in promoting and selling these powerful drugs. “I realized that the big problem here was that we had been seeing it as a crisis, like a natural disaster like a flood or a hurricane, rather than as a series of crimes,” says Gibney. “You had these terrible incentives, where the incentive is not to cure the patient. The incentive is to just make as much money as possible.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says U.S. drug overdose deaths skyrocketed to a record 93,000 last year — a nearly 30% increase. It is the largest one-year increase ever recorded, with overdoses rising in 48 of 50 states.Democracy Now
Black Managers Snub Walmart, Say People Of Color Should NEVER Join The Retailer – by Roland S. Martin
An internal survey by Walmart found many high-ranking Black employees would not recommend working there. While the country’s largest employer has been vocal about recruiting a diverse workforce and spending millions of dollars toward advancing racial equity, its Black employees say they face barriers when trying to advance their careers, such as favoritism and internal politics. Black employees make up nearly 21% of the retailer’s workforce, but only 12% of Black employees are on the managerial level and just 8% at the officer level.Roland S. Martin
“Lying Flat” is Making Beijing Anxious | Three-child Policy
Limited job opportunities and social resources make the competition for young people in modern China increasingly fierce. But there is a group of young people who think differently, they do not compete, will not get married, will not have a child, and will not buy a house. This is now popular among young people in China – the “lying flat” doctrine.Three-child Policy
Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol | Visual Investigations – by The New York Times
“…The Times synchronized and mapped thousands of videos and police audio of the U.S. Capitol riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.”
The New York Times
As part of a six-month investigation, The Times synchronized and mapped thousands of videos and police audio of the U.S. Capitol riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.The New York Times
Evangelicals & Politics – The Unholy Alliance of Strange Bedfellows
The Kindness & Severity
By Terrence Straughter & SlaveOfJesusChrist
The Father poured out His wrath on His Son to settle the score with sin. Where did we get “God takes sin lightly” from??? Consider the relationship the Father and Son have had from eternity past and imagine The Father doing so and the Son having to endure the Almighty wrath of God, along with being brutally beaten, and carrying the weight of the world literally. Jesus came while we were bad enough not good enough.
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:=
23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Test All Things Pt. 12 – Sunday School & Youth Ministry
The acceptance of social norms in the church without examination is helpful for maintaining peace, and unity, but, at the same time, it can be a source of harm to the church, and its members. A couple of these social norms, which deserves scrutiny, is Sunday school and youth ministry as a whole. These ministries in the church, which are geared toward its younger members comes with well intentions for many of its leaders. Nevertheless, they contradict Scripture’s teaching on how children are to be raised in the fear, and admonition of the Lord. The Bible repeatedly places this responsibility on Fathers, and not the church’s institution of youth pastors, and youth leaders.
The Sunday school concept can be traced back to Robert Raikes’ Sunday School movement in England in the 18th century. Raikes’ Sunday School movement was an attempt at social reform in Gloucester, England, which pre-dated state schooling, and became very popular throughout the country. However, his movement was not received well by everyone. One of the objections raised to the movement was the concern that it would interfere with religious home-based education, which was the norm at that time. Much has changed since then. Today, it isn’t the norm for fathers to be the teachers to their children on religion. Instead, the children are handed over to church institutions, just as they are handed over to the public school systems for education. The parents have forgotten their God-given duties to their families, and have grown accustomed to the new social norm of trusting institutions with the raising of their children.
Nevertheless, it is God’s desire, in these last days, that the church turns the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
Therefore, churches should build up the fathers in the faith so that they will be equipped for the work of ministry to their own families (Hebrews 12:12-13). The church should empower men to obey Scripture’s commands to them, and it should be careful not to be overly helpful by taking up the responsibilities that God has clearly assigned to others. To make that mistake could disrupts the harmony, and structure which God designed families to have.
Many of these institutions, which claim to be modern day churches, are not churches at all, but corporations that aims to grow their businesses buy meeting the needs of the customers. This seeker sensitive model of religion is not run by pastors, but businessmen, who do not have the best interest of Christ’s sheep in mind, but, instead, are hirelings. To learn how to shepherd Christ’s sheep by modeling one’s church after their example will only produce a seeker sensitive corporation that is incapable of submitting to Scripture’s commands and guidance, because the goal of such models is not evangelism, discipleship, and loving God’s people, but mere earthly success that is based upon meeting people’s desires. To learn more about this seeker sensitive consumer driven church model, click on the link entitled, “Church of Tares“.
Changing Laws Pt. 15 – Obama’s Gun Measure Defeat
In President Obama’s “Today Is A Shameful Day for Washington” speech, the Senate was criticized for not approving of the new bill for gun control, and were blamed for being intimidated by a minority of voters who would no longer support the various senators if they approve of the new gun measures. But is this really the case? President Obama claims that the bill would not violate any constitutional rights. But can this claim be taken serious? Could the Senate, and their alleged fear of a minority of voters, actually be the reason for the lack of cooperation with Obama’s gun control agenda? Or is it more likely that the president’s stretching of the laws, and his changing of the laws, to work in favor of radical liberal agendas has cost him credibility with many Americans, who now are convinced that the president has little to no concern for the constitution, and, therefore, cannot be trusted, nor cooperated with, in cases of gun laws, and constitutional rights?
There have, in fact, been times when the president has violated American’s trust, and has shown himself to be a radical liberal, who is willing to work in secret against the people of the U.S. and engage in subtle doubletalk, in his speeches, to fool unsuspecting people into thinking that he is only trying to do what’s best for the country. Examples of these would be his administrations’ labeling of Christians as possible domestic terrorists, the many promises which he both made and broke in his first term, his willingness to work with the U.N. on gun safety, his efforts to have the unjust law of the NDAA passed, which allows for American citizens to be detained for an indefinable amount of time without first committing a crime, his radical support of, the Islamic Brotherhood controlled, Egypt, his weak stance on real terrorism, his radical liberal, socialist, healthcare bill, and the Give Act, just to name few.
Therefore, the Senates lack of willingness to submit to “common sense” in regards to Obama’s gun measures cannot be perceived by these same American’s, who no longer have any confidence in Obama as a fellow American, but instead, is now viewed by them as a communist, or communitarian, as negligence, and fear of a minority of voters. Instead, to these Americans, who are not liberals, the Senate’s lack of cooperation should be viewed as true common sense, and gratefully welcomed.
In short, only true Americans, who do not violate traditional constitutional values, can be cooperated with, and trusted, by the country on gun control laws, and not radical liberals, who use Saul Alinsky tactics to manipulate ignorant people into radically changing the country for the worst.
Related articles are listed below:
Radical Takeover Pt. 11 – Gay Rights Agenda to Destroy Marriage
The claims in the articles below suggest a hidden agenda for the institution of marriage. It is an agenda to change, and ultimately destroy, marriage. The articles reveal a forgotten side of the gay rights movement that the mainstream media is not reporting, yet is still an issue today. This issue is a deep rooted determination, among gay activists, to be liberated from traditional relationships, and from the traditional institution of the family.
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio [RN Podcast] show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
Most homosexuals don’t want to ‘marry’ or adopt, French homosexual leader admits
The co-founder of a new French homosexual organization, Homovox, says that most homosexuals do not want to marry or adopt children, and are not supporters of the socialist government’s proposed legislation to create homosexual “marriage.”
French lesbian Nathalie de Williencourt says she decided to create the group as a result of her frustration over a vocal homosexual lobby that has been unquestioningly accepted as the mouthpiece of all of the country’s homosexuals.
The homosexuals Williencourt knows “don’t have any desire to marry nor to adopt.”
“They don’t feel represented by activists that they haven’t chosen, who steal the stage from a silent majority,” she told the French magazine Christian Family. “Many feel belittled, mistreated by this array of demands that stigmatize them.”
Homovox, which was established in November of last year, has created a website displaying testimony by numerous homosexuals who disavow the push for homosexual “marriage.” Willeincourt says that the organization marched on Sunday with up to one million other French citizens protesting the proposed legislation.
The gay radicals of the past didn’t want equality: they wanted liberation, and thought marriage was oppression
Some overexcited observers are describing last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as the glorious endpoint to nearly 50 years of agitation for gay rights. Finally, and courtesy largely of David Cameron, New York City’s Stonewall rioters of 1969 and the daring organisers of Britain’s first-ever Gay Pride parades in the early 1970s have seen their dreams of equality come true. They had a dream, those early warriors for homosexual rights, and now that dream is a reality. Let us rejoice!
There is only one problem with this narrative – it is the biggest load of bunkum. It glosses over the fact that those early gay radicals were not remotely interested in getting married, or in winning equality, the only thing that today’s super-square gay campaigners and their cheerleaders go on about. The Stonewall radicals wanted liberation, not equality, and they wanted to destroy marriage, not buy into it. The Gay Liberation Front that emerged out of the Stonewall riot insisted that “complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished”.
It was pretty clear that one of the social institutions that would have to be done away with was marriage. A Gay Manifesto, an influential radical pamphlet published in 1970, described marriage as “a rotten, oppressive institution”. In Gay is Good, lesbian activist Martha Shelley’s explosive and much-loved 1972 booklet, homosexuals were described as “women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and the nuclear family structure”. As for Britain’s early Gay Pride get-togethers – they viewed marriage and the family as “a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children”. To depict last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as a victory for these early campaigners is a bit like saying the nuking of Hiroshima was the joyous outcome of CND marches.
Writing in 2002, on the 30th anniversary of Britain’s first Gay Pride parade, Peter Tatchell said: “There were no calls for equality; our demand was liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it.” So in essence, the gay marriage campaign of today, with its drab demand that homosexuals be granted equal access to the social institution of “rotten, oppressive” marriage, represents not the fulfilment of early gay radicals’ demands but the warping of them, the stomping of them into the dirt of history. It is a well-known fact that most radicals end up going straight, eventually donning a suit and tie and accepting a fat wage packet in return for tempering their ideals. But the gay movement, in switching from loathing marriage to longing to enter into it, and from demanding that the state get our of their lives to pleading with the state to officiate their relationships, has performed an about-face that is unprecedented even in modern radical politics.
Related Articles are listed below:
- “War on Consciousness Pt. 21 – The Jesuits & The Gay Rights Movement“
- “Changing Laws Pt. 10 – France Set to Ban the Words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ from Official Documents“
- “War on Consciousness Pt. 20 – The U.N.’s Sexual Perversion of Children through World Sex Education Curriculum“