The pope was making a theological point, that all human beings are sinful, and that this destruction is a manifestation of that sinfulness. But it is also noteworthy that he ascribed the destruction he saw to all of humanity, and decried nations that sell weapons, but never said a word about why the ruined buildings he saw were destroyed in the first place. The Islamic State destroyed mosques because the people who attended them did not accept their authority, and were thus apostates in rebellion against the caliphate. It destroyed churches because they were places of unbelief (see Qur’an 5:17, 9:30, etc.) and shirk, the association of partners with Allah in worship. But there was never any possibility that the pope might ask the assembled Muslim leaders to fight against jihad violence and teach their people to refrain from jihad violence. After all, the pope has committed himself and the Catholic Church to the proposition that Islam is peaceful and has nothing to do with terrorism, so as far as he was concerned, there was nothing for him to ask the Muslim leaders about. And that rendered the trip a useless and indeed counterproductive exercise.
“Pope Francis dismisses ‘heresy’ charges for his commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue,” by Claire Giangravé, Religion News Service, March 8, 2021:
VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Aboard the papal flight back from Iraq, the first papal trip since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis addressed criticism of those who have accused him of being “one step away from heresy” in his commitment to promoting human fraternity among the world’s faiths.
“There are some critics who say the pope is not brave but reckless, that he’s taking steps against Catholic doctrine, that he’s one step from heresy,” the pope told journalists on Monday (March 8).
Francis said that his decision to speak with Muslim religious leaders and promote interreligious dialogue is “always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice.” He said that his efforts to mend Christian-Muslim relations, far from being “capricious,” are in keeping with the doctrine laid out by the Second Vatican Council….
On Saturday (March 6), the pope met in Najaf, a holy city to Shia Muslims, with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leader. The historic meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, was the first official meeting between a pope and a prominent Shiite representative.
The pope described al-Sistani as “a humble man” who has “wisdom and prudence,” adding that “it was good for my soul to encounter him.” Francis said the meeting was “a duty in his pilgrimage of faith” to promote human fraternity among religions….
It was the tragic decimation of the Yazidi ethnic community by the Islamic State group following the 2014 occupation of Northern Iraq that inspired the pope to make the trip, he said. The book “The Last Girl” by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, which described the suffering of the Yazidi people, “provided the background for the decision,” he said.
On Sunday (March 7), Francis viewed the ruins of mosques and churches in Mosul, the capital of the Islamic State during the occupation. He said he “had no words” after seeing the scale of destruction. “Human cruelty, our cruelty, is impossible to believe,” he added.
The pope also criticized those nations selling weapons, though he didn’t single out any particular country….
Among the topics addressed by the pope during the trip was the question of the suffering of immigrants, which has been a main focus of this pontificate. Francis met with the father of a 3-year-old boy who died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The picture of Alan Kurdi’s body became a symbol of the plight of immigrants and refugees in Europe and beyond….
Most are unaware that the Roman Catholic Church is a secular as well as religious organization. It weds church and state. As such, throughout the centuries, it has fielded armies, raised taxes, occupied territories—as it does today at the Vatican. As all governments do that are opposed to freedom, the Roman Catholic Church has conducted “inquisitions” and “book burnings” to “root out error.”
An example of this is during the 16th century in Germany. Martin Luther was a friar who served as professor of biblical studies in out-of-the-way Wittenberg. Luther posted his ninety-five theses (objections) regarding the “selling of indulgences” on the church door of Wittenberg, the local bulletin board. This created a firestorm throughout Europe. The local inquisitor (official appointed by the RCC to handle such problems) was Thomas Cajetan. Luther’s works were later burned in the town square by men such as Cajetan, and Luther himself was taken before an august assembly known as a Diet—an official inquisition by the Roman Catholic Church.
Everything that was taught must conform to the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Non-conformity was punishable by death by burning at a stake. This is the nature of a communistic-totalitarian-style government that ruled from the Vatican in Rome.
We do not see much literal flames burning hardcover books today—but we do have the deletion and censorship on social media of what is considered anything outside the orthodoxy. So powerful has it become that Big Tech has censored the former President, Donald Trump, even before he left office. The new DHS put out this statement this past week: “We remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority … and ideological causes fueled by false narratives could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence.”
So, false “ideas” that fuel “false narratives” [speech]—that are outside this orthodoxy—are banned. In November, a member of the Democratic National Committee, David Atkins, said on Twitter that “de-programming” is needed for every one of the Trump supporters in America. Add to this the newly proposed bill by Rep. Adam Schiff called “The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021” that targets “extremists” that need de-programming. Then we have Rep. Stephanie Murphy’s “Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021” that proposes forbidding security clearances to conservatives.
Inquisitions and Book Burnings. I wonder which book they will be after next?
Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court itself had the potential to distort the original intent of the Founders by using “Judicial Review.” He saw that the Court might begin creating law instead of merely interpreting the laws passed by the legislature and applying them in the cases that came before it. Late in life he wrote:
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
While there are certainly other factors involved in America’s decline from its original constitutional model, Jefferson’s admonition strikes at the heart of the issues involved today.
With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and President Trump’s constitutional role in filling that vacancy, the war that is shaping up in Washington, D.C. is ominous. Showing complete disdain for our Constitution, the frenzied left is promising such outlandish measures as bringing impeachment charges against our president solely for the purpose of hindering him from doing his Constitutional duty.
Let’s look, however, behind the mayhem to see the foundational issues involved.
One rude and reckless blogger posted this on Facebook. “With justice Ginsberg passing today, all my female and minority friends better vote like your life depends upon it … these … Republicans are going to have you barefoot and in the kitchen with zero rights over your genitals and put minorities ‘back in their place’ in society …!!”
It is difficult to imagine a more frantic and ignorant statement than this. But it does highlight some major erroneous thought processes that live on the socialist left. Before noting them it is worth mentioning that the comment above focuses upon the issue of abortion. That is noteworthy because it is the lefties and socialists in America who like to say, “You conservatives are a ONE ISSUE group of people—always mentioning abortion!” In point of fact, that is inaccurate—however, surrounding the war pertaining to Ginsberg’s replacement, just who is riveting attention to one single issue? The Liberal Left.
Judicial Supremacy is a “radical over-extension”, indeed, perversion – “of the legitimate doctrines of ‘judicial review and stare decisis (‘to stand by matters that have been settled’). In brief, the modern doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is as follows: (1) That the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in issues that come before the Court and that that meaning of the Constitution, instead of applying only against the parties that come before the Court, applies against everyone in the country situated in similar circumstances.
(2) That an opinion of the Supreme Court can only be modified or cancelled by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment to the Constitution.
(3) Nothing can be done to any justice of the Court as a consequence of any opinion handed down, no matter how fraudulent or willfully false it may be.
(4) Most importantly: Judicial Supremacy assumes that the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions are: (i) largely unknown and even unknowable, unless that provision becomes illuminated by the Supreme Court itself; (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from time to time as the Supreme Court deems advisable.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
Like liberal views of the Bible, so these views of the Constitution and of the role of the Supreme Court land us in nothing less than an oligarchy whereby we are ruled by a board of nine judges—not the Constitution itself. And in case of a 5-4 decision by the Court, the fate of the nation can be decided by only one single judge. Little wonder therefore, that the Political War of 2020 is heightening.
First, the Constitution had a Definite Meaning Before the Supreme Court was Formed. The Constitution and all of its provisions were well known by the people much before the Supreme Court was formed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the Supreme Court was not formed until 1789 and the first cases reached it in August of 1791. In other words, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. Are we to believe that it was passed and ratified by “We the People” but that they had no idea as to its meaning until nine black-robed justices began handing down decisions?
Further, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution” and the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”—no person could honestly have taken this oath before the formation and decisions of the Supreme Court if “Judicial Supremacy” be true.
Second, Judicial Supremacy is Self-Contradictory. Article 3 of the Constitution covers the Judicial Branch. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 describes the cases that come before the Supreme Court. Those who favor the modern doctrine of “Judicial Supremacy” point to this Section to establish it. But that presupposes that we are able to comprehend the meaning of its provisions without Supreme Court clarification.
This is the same fundamental contradiction made by the Roman Church when seeking to establish papal supremacy. Catholic defenders run to Matthew 16:16-18 in an effort to establish the doctrine in the minds of doubters. However, this maneuver assumes that one may read and understand the text without papal assistance. In point of fact, the text actually teaches no such thing as papal supremacy any more than Article 3 gives foundation for Judicial Supremacy.
Third, the Constitution is Self-Defining. One is able to read and understand the meaning of the text without assistance from an “inspired” Court of Nine. If there are challenges to interpretation, one need only read The Federalist Papers, the commentary composed by those who actually wrote the Constitution, to determine its meaning. As a matter of fact, it was upon this basis, by the notes put together in articles by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, that the colonies learned and accepted the Constitution to begin with.
There is a frenzy of activity surrounding the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but the real reason the Democrat/Socialists of America are waging war is found in the following statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Progressives want a living, breathing Constitution because they want to mold society into their own image. They crave power. Originalism restrains power.” Without rule of law, government becomes arbitrary and despotic. Exactly where the Socialists will take us.
We have seemingly heard more how racist is white America within the last decade than ever before. The British Academy Awards this year featured Joaquin Phoenix lecturing the film industry for its “systemic racism.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a “pastoral letter” in 2018 which indicts the entire western culture for being racist at a “systemic” level.
What exactly is systemic racism? According to theconversation.com, which published the article regarding Joaquin Phoenix, “systemic” or “institutional” racism refers to how “ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.” These “systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems,” such as education and hiring practices.
What proofs are normally offered that white America is “systemically racist?” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offers frontlines four primary facts which supposedly support the conclusion. First, unemployment rates for African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are considerably higher than the national average.
Second, in the United States, the “median wealth” for white households is ten times greater than for black households, and eight times greater than for Hispanic households. Three, minority home ownership rates lag behind their white counterparts. Four, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are “disproportionately affected through every stage of the criminal justice system.”
The socialist-inspired conclusion that the bishops wish one to draw is the assumption that disparities result because foul-play must be involved. People of color suffer injustices from “white society.” But differences among peoples and subcultures as a possible cause is never considered—that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. No discussion ever occurs on whether or not minority subcultures actually value different ideas. No examination of personal choices; no study of what minority cultures may be infusing into its own people; no time pondering divergent habits or values that may be ingrained in minority populations—simply announce that America is a “racist” society—systemically so.
What about other statistics which show disparity? For example, out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40 percent. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent; among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent; but among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent.
What about abortion? In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times than for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. Fatherless homes rank as a continuing problem, particularly among minority communities where male children growing up without fathers severs a child from male leadership outside of teenage gang memberships.
Is this to say that minorities have an immoral DNA? No. But it does show that those communities that are more totally dependent upon the government through systems of welfare have a deteriorating moral standard. That’s the nature of government dependency. Witness the Indian reservations wherein every single social malady skyrockets compared to the wider culture. Abortion, suicide, alcoholism, joblessness, fatherless homes and drug abuse are common problems associated with Indian reservations.
The point is simply this; in statistics that are measurable minority communities indicate that they have a different value system. Their moral standards have been corroded. And unless we can face these hard facts there is no hope for America.
Communist strategy has always been to exploit the natural fissures of society. Chiang Kai-shek, president of the Republic of China who passed in 1975, contended with communism for over thirty years. His first-hand observation was that the communist strategy is “always to analyze a country’s social structure before infiltrating it. They not only explore and exploit, but also create professional, regional, and religious contradictions. Then in the midst of the confusion, they win the masses over by disseminating propaganda about class struggle and establishing party cells among them.” Drive wedges into the natural divisions of society.
Vladimir Lenin stated in 1921 that it is “possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only by exerting the utmost effort, and by being thorough, careful, attentive and skillful in taking advantage of various kinds of fissures, even the smallest ones, on the part of the enemy …” That which naturally commended itself to communist infiltration was the racial divide in America.
Little wonder that the Roman Catholic bishops are now led by Marxist-oriented Pope Francis. It is also no coincidence that in seeking to establish “systemic racism” in America theconversation.com (cited above) leads with a quote from communist “Black Power” militant Stokely Carmichael to accentuate racism in America. Carmichael, originally from Trinidad, became interested in High School in studying the work of none other than Karl Marx from which he became an immediate militant demonstrating against the House Committee on Un-American Activities that had been exposing communists in America.
No need today for exposure of communist militants working “behind-the-scenes.” Saboteurs of our culture work in high places such as the former Obama Administration; the Vatican; and various professorships in academia. Therefore, we will increasingly hear how “systemic” our racism has been. It is past time to question their assumptions.
Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”
She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”
And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”
Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”
What About These Things?
While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.
This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.
Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.
This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.
How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”
Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.
The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.
The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.
The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.
Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!
Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.
Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?
The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.
When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).
Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.
Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.
Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.
It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.
The ALA has partnered up with the anti-Christian bigots of the Southern Poverty Law Center to promote the latest LGBTQ agenda item: sex perverts for tots.
OK, kiddies, say so long to Dr. Seuss, Mother Goose, and Peter Rabbit. And say hello to Sparkle Boy, Jacob’s New Dress, My Princess Boy, The Dragtivity Book, and Heather Has Two Mommies.
It’s Drag Queen Story Hour time! And, as a special treat, we have some big, hairy men with beards and mustaches in sequined gowns and some girlie men in fishnet stockings and mini-skirts to read these fun, transformative stories to you. What’s more, they may sprinkle you with magic glitter, blow bubbles at you, lead you in a “gay” songfest, and even let you crawl all over them. Sounds super-fun, right?
Yes, what a short time ago would have been unthinkable, absurd, even criminal, has now become a commonplace occurrence in “woke” cities, towns, and hamlets all across America. How has it happened that Drag Queen Story Hours (DQSHs) have suddenly popped up all across the landscape like mushrooms after a rain? There’s really no mystery about it. The DQSHs are not spontaneously-grown, natural, organic mushrooms; they’re toxic toadstools intentionally planted by sexual predators and the cultural subversives who promote and assist them.
Incredibly, in an era in which all teachers, counselors, coaches, pastors, and almost all adults working with young children are required to undergo background checks, our public libraries and schools have given a free pass to some of the most obvious sex deviants to enable their free access to toddlers.
Among the foremost promoters of this toxic toadstool cult is the American Library Association (ALA), aided by “progressives” and LGBTQ activists posing as journalists in the Fake News Media. And (no surprise) the hateful millionaire LGBTQ cry-bullies at the Southern Poverty Law Center are helping provide critical cover, smearing parents who oppose this outrageous scheme as being transphobic neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens have been dumbfounded, not only by the brazenness of this latest all-out assault on decency, but even more so by the adamant defense of the indefensible by librarians, school officials, city councilmen, and local media. It’s become painfully obvious that the Drag Queen Story Hour is a well-planned, carefully-orchestrated offensive, one in which the LGBTQ Mafia has coordinated its moves with its political and media allies.
Make Them “Own It”!
However, the outraged parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens are fighting back, undaunted by the smears and name-calling. And, as more and more Drag Queen “performers” are outed as convicted sex criminals, it is now the DQSH perpetrators and promoters who are being put on the defensive.
As The New American reported in August (“Drag”ing Kids Into the LGBTQ Abyss), the coverage of the DQSH controversy in the “mainstream” media has been almost universally sympathetic to the crossdressing deviants. “Thus it was telling (though hardly surprising) that when real news broke about one of the much-hyped drag queen stars being a convicted child sex offender, the media cheerleading section went mostly mum,” we reported. “It turns out that 32-year-old registered sex offender Alberto Garza, who participated in the Houston Drag Queen Story Hour under the name Tatiana Mala Niña (Tatiana ‘Bad Girl’), was convicted in 2009 of aggravated sexual assault of an eight-year-old child. He is a ‘Bad Girl’ indeed! Now, might that possibly be of interest to parents, grandparents, and, well, anyone committed to the safety of children? One might suppose so. After all, isn’t ‘child safety’ one of the arguments put forward for the story hour by the program’s proponents?”
“So how did the truth about Garza/Mala Niña’s criminal sexcapades reach the light of day?” we asked. “Was it the library, the city government, the police department, or the local or national media that discovered and exposed this pertinent fact? The answer: None of the above.”
No, as we noted, “Bad Girl” Garza was exposed thanks to the determined efforts of the dads and moms at Houston MassResistance, a Texas affiliate of the national pro-family group MassResistance based in Massachusetts. MassResistance then exposed another Houston DQSH convicted sex offender, William Travis Dees, who, among his various pervert personas, dresses as a mock Catholic nun in the obscene and sacriligeous Drag group “Space Sisters.”
The good folks at MassResistance have continued to expose the criminal degeneracy and child endangerment inherent in the ongoing Drag Queen Story Hour travesty. The librarians and city officials in Austin, like those in Houston, have been caught red-handed. MassResistance revealed the court records of David Lee Richardson, aka “Miss Kitty Litter,” an Austin DQSH performer. Richardson had been previously arrested and convicted of offering sex for money — prostitution. What’s more, they compiled a 135-page report documenting Richardson’s incredibly vile social media postings, many of which would fit into a triple-X rating. One of his postings shows a personalized license plate that reads, “ILUV-ANL.” Another posting shows him in leather and handcuffs promoting BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sado-Masochism), with the following quote: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but Chains and Whips excite me.” As should be obvious to any reasonable adult, introducing young children to sadomasochist practitioners is not only to endanger them morally and psychologically, but physically as well.
Undoubtedly, the criminal records of DQSH kiddie “entertainers” exposed thus far by MassResistance researchers are just the tip of the iceberg. Where is the due diligence on the part of the public officials and journalists who are promoting this perverse onslaught? Many, if not all of these “performers,” have Web pages and social media accounts that are readily accessible for anyone willing to check them out. These individuals are narcissistic exhibitionists. They flaunt their aberrant and disgusting proclivities. Some of them have literally hundreds of raunchy photos and videos of themselves in their various drag outfits. It should not be necessary to produce an actual arrest record or conviction to disqualify them as “models” for our children; their narcissistic obsession and degenerate activities should make them abhorrent to all but the most morally bankrupt. The library officials, politicians, and media mavens who support this depravity must be made to “own” the full consequences of this assault on morality.
MassResistance is doing precisely that. It is holding them accountable by exposing the true, sordid nature of the DQSH and its dissolute storytellers. In Houston, public officials who had gushed over Drag Queens were forced to publicly apologize and admit they had failed to conduct even the most elementary screening of their DQSH performers prior to unleashing them on the unsuspecting community and innocent children.
In Chula Vista, California, a MassResistance chapter and local churches went to bat against Drag Queen Story Hour at the local public library. City Councilor Steven Padilla, who is openly “gay,” attacked the Christian opponents of the perverse program as being part of a group (i.e., MassResistance) that “promotes anti-immigrant and white-supremacist beliefs.” He provided no evidence to back up the defamatory claim — because there is none. He was merely regurgitating bile spewing from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has grown obscenely wealthy by peddling the race card and demonizing Christian, conservative, patriotic, pro-life, and pro-family groups and individuals. The Center has also spread hate and violence while claiming to oppose both.
SPLC/ALA’s Putrid Pipeline
One of the most notorious examples of SPLC hate-inspired violence is the case of the near deadly shooting attack on the Washington, D.C headquarters office of the Family Research Council (FRC). The intended killer, Floyd Lee Corkins, who said he wanted to kill everyone he could at the Christian group’s offices, later told FBI agents that his attack was inspired by information he got from the SPLC that identified FRC as an anit-LGBTQ “hate group.” The FRC released a video with clips that shows Corkins shooting building manager Leo Johnson. Corkins said that “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.”
The anti-Christian extremists at the Southern Poverty Law Center also seem to have an inordinate influence at the American Library Association. The ALA website has multiple explicit references to the Center and many additional statements, resolutions, and policies that employ almost verbatim the SPLC’s malicious accusations against individuals and groups that stand against the “progressive” agenda championed by the SPLC. A division of the ALA, the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), for instance, published “Countering Hate in Schools,” in which it reports: “The ALSC Board recently voted to sign on with the Southern Poverty Law Center and 20 other education advocacy groups to counter hate in American schools. The coalition is committed to providing resources and support so schools may effectively respond to hateful acts and create learning environments where every student feels welcome.”
The ALA’s webpage, “Hate Groups and Violence in Libraries,” reads as if it were written by the SPLC’s LGBTQ activists (which it very likely was), and it specifically links to the SPLC’s notorious “Hate Map” that maliciously equates Christian conservatives with the KKK and neo-Nazis.
When it comes to the very controversial Drag Queen Story Hour issue, there is little doubt as to where the ruling faction of the ALA stands; it has linked arms with the radical LGBTG lobby, regardless of the growing pushback from parents and taxpayers. In “Libraries Respond: Drag Queen Story Hour,” the ALA states: “Many libraries across the country have been hosting or participating in Drag Queen Story Hours. A few have experienced pushback from some members of their community. To support libraries facing challenges we have established this collection of resources. We will continue to add to it and welcome your contributions. ALA, through its actions and those of its members, is instrumental in creating a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society. This includes a commitment to combating marginalization and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion.”
To demonstrate this commitment, the Association’s website directs readers to the “ALA Resources – Toolkits & Best Practices,” under which we find:
• Open to All: Serving the GLBT Community in Your Library – created by the Rainbow Round Table
• Defending Intellectual Freedom: LGBTQ+ Materials in School Libraries (AASL)
• Drag Queen Story Hour: Reading Fabulously – Program session from the 2018 Public Library Association (PLA) Conference
• Hateful Conduct in Libraries: Supporting Library Workers and Patrons – created in partnership with the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) and Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services (ODLOS)
In addition, we have these “Blog Posts from Across ALA”:
• Drag Queen Story Hour by Kat Savage from ALSC Blog, June 15, 2017
• Drag Queen Story Hour by ALSC Early Childhood Programs and Services Committee, ALSC Blog, July 22, 2017
• #PLA2018 Drag Up Your Storytime by Erin Douglass from ALSC Blog, March 24, 2018
• Three Queens: Perspectives on Drag Queen Story Hour by Alex Falck from Intellectual Freedom Blog, July 5, 2018
• When a Protestor Interrupts Drag Queen Storytime by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 20, 2018
• Ain’t it a Drag? Program Challenges at the Public Library by James LaRue from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 1, 2017
• Defend Pride at Your Library by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 10, 2018
• Drag Queen Story Hour: Q&A with Port Jefferson Free Library, Programming Librarian, Oct. 26, 2018
Many voices in the Catholic Church are exulting in the September 1 appointment by Pope Francis of pro-homosexual Archbishop Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, Italy to the position of cardinal. Zuppi was one of 13 individuals promoted. PinkNews, an online news agency for the global LGBT+ community, praised the new appointment precisely because Zuppi is a “pro-LGBT+” advocate.
Another celebrant to the appointment is Fr. James Martin, author of a pro-LGBT+ Catholic book called Building a Bridge. Zuppi had written the “Foreward” to Martin’s book. According to PinkNews, “Zuppi identifies that there is ‘a bridge that needs continuous building’ between the Church and the LGTB+ community, who he describes as ‘people of God.’”
Amazingly, so far from the word of God have many Catholics strayed that Archbishop Zuppi calls the homosexual network in the world “the people of God.” The fact that Zuppi has been named as “cardinal” means he will be able to vote for the next pope when that time arrives (Michael Chapman, CNSnews.com; 9-9-19).
According to PinkNews, the appointment is also “celebrated” among “more progressive Christians, who hope the Pope’s choice of cardinals reflects his vision for ‘a Church of dialogue.’”
So here it is. The Roman Catholic Church is setting a trajectory for pro-homosexual teaching in the future, discarding not only hundreds of years of teaching, but more importantly, the clear biblical teaching which describes homosexuality as not only sin, but “perversion” (Jude 7, NIV). But such is expected to be the case in a church not found on the pages of the New Testament.
The real shocker in all of this is the reaction which many in the “Christian world” have exhibited. Instead of lamenting the direction of society, including those who claim to be “spiritual leaders,” many are celebrating it. If not celebrating—at least defending it.
One person wrote in response to the posted simple news story—“So if you are a Christian or go to church you have to hate gays?”
This is the knee-jerk reaction of people who cannot take biblical teaching regarding sin of any kind. They hurl accusations of “hatred” upon those who point out sin. By this logic Jesus Himself was a “hater” because he taught against “fornication”—which includes homosexuality (Matt. 19:9).
Another responded: “Let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.”
Once again, an anemic effort to thwart the biblical teaching against sin. Since all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) we might as well just put a cork in our mouths when it comes to quoting passages that condemn sin. But more than this, the Bible nowhere teaches that all sin is the same sin.
It is true that all sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2); but it is also true that some sins have a much more deleterious effect upon society and upon one’s soul than other sins. Even Jesus referred to some sins “as greater” (John 19:11). Paul wrote that some sins have more serious effect upon one’s body (1 Cor. 6:18), perhaps by twisting the mind more wickedly.
It is difficult to believe that modern people have come to the conclusion that the sin of burning children alive in the fires to false gods—as did some Israelites in the OT (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35, et. al.)—is no more culpable than a “white lie” spoken to one’s parents. Both are sins—but one not only has many more harmful effects on society as a whole but indicates a deeper depth of depravity than the other.
So it is with homosexuality. Inspired Apostle Paul called the sin of homosexuality “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26) and a “vile passion.” It occurs when God “has given up a society” (1:24). Jude referred to it as “going after strange flesh” (Jude 7, ASV) or “perversion” (NIV). God said plainly in Leviticus that there were a number of particular sins, including bestiality and homosexuality, for which the “land will vomit you out” (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22). Not all sins fell into this category. Not all sins are classed as “perverted.”
Still another asks, “Do you love the sinner when you point out sin?” Once more, this sounds as if the biblical doctrine against homosexuality makes us just simply nervous. We immediately dodge by questioning the motives of someone pointing out the sin of homosexuality.
What if I had no love of God in my heart for any sinner? Would that change the truth? Absolutely not. Jonah preached the truth of God to Nineveh (Jonah 3). Nineveh would be overthrown unless they repented. I wonder if the Ninevites squirmed beneath this message by saying—“do you have LOVE for us Ninevites?” –as if to say that somehow the message would be changed if he did not.
But as a matter of fact, Jonah did NOT have love of people in his heart. He was very angry (Jonah 4:1) that Nineveh was spared upon their repentance. He wanted them destroyed!! As all can easily see however, this had nothing to do with the message itself. Jonah delivered the message faithfully even though his motives were not what they ought to be.
It is a perfect illustration of the modern generation being non-thinking, even practicing “avoidance behavior,” on the topic of sin. Whenever sin is pointed out or preached against, we dismiss the teaching by suggesting that “too many people hate.”
Reality is: we are so unaccustomed to God’s Unfiltered Word that we perform many mental gymnastics to avoid its impact—including charging preachers of the Word with being “haters.”
If I do not love one person in the world as I preach it does not change the fact that I am to preach and people need to accept the truth of God. The issue of homosexuality is not whether I love or hate. The issue is: What does the Bible teach, and am I to teach it? If I do not love as I am commanded to do, that is another issue entirely. And what IS occurring today is an overturning of society by the false prophets of the Roman Church by the appointment of pro-homosexual bishops to higher leadership positions.
The Democrats have Christianity in their cross-hairs. It must be eliminated. According to presidential candidate Joe Biden, his top priority in the Oval Office, should he be elected, will be to pass and enforce the “Equality Act”—a proposed bill that normalizes deviant sexual behavior while penalizing biblical Christianity.
Recently, Joe Biden honored the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for moving “the moral arc in this nation towards justice.” The HRC is a prominent homosexual advocacy group. He was referring to the so-called Equality Act, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in May. The Equality Act would effectively gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which has protected Americans with a Christian conscience from interference from Big Brother Government. As Bill Donohue, president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wrote in May:
The Equality Act is the most comprehensive assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy ever packaged into one bill in the history of the United States. …this act is based on the idea that sexually challenged men and women—those who think they can transition to the other sex—should be treated as if hey were members of a minority race.
In short, the Equality Act takes “political correctness” and puts a statist government’s teeth into it. Let’s see the background.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. In 1993 none other than Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the RFRA, a bill which was intended to keep federal laws from burdening a person’s religious convictions. The bill passed and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
It is important to note that this resulted from a huge national movement of Christians to protect their First Amendment God-given rights. The Left, however, has never appreciated it, to say the least. For example, in 2014, the RFRA was used as a basis to challenge the ObamaCare mandate that required all for-profit companies to cover abortion-inducing drugs in their health-care plans. Hobby Lobby successfully challenged in Court Obama’s iron-fisted unconstitutional law.
The Left, therefore, has not only despised Christianity itself, but the basic protections that our Constitution has guaranteed them, including the First Amendment. After the 1993 RFRA, the war began to rage openly.
In 1997 the Supreme Court “ruled” that the RFRA could not apply to the states—only the federal government. This left the states open to irreligious assaults. The Christian communities around the country then began to pass at state levels their own religious freedom bills. Enough!, says the Left. We will eradicate Christian liberty once and for all—hence, the Equality Act.
The Equality Act
This historic proposal will take the 1964 Civil Rights Act and apply it to the Homosexual Network operating in the United States. It will therefore gut the RFRA by granting homosexuals and other deviant sexual behaviors preferential treatment in hiring; houses of worship would be turned into places of “public accommodations” where the Equality Act would rule; beginning in kindergarten children will be indoctrinated with the LGBTQ agenda; freedom of speech by Bible-oriented Christians would be endangered by law; privacy rights in bathrooms and gym locker rooms would be a thing of the past as would parental rights to teach children the sin of homosexuality. In short, liberty would be lost.
Bill Donohue adds,
If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, check out what has happened to religious liberty in New Jersey and Ohio where Catholic hospitals have been targeted. Unless they agree to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who claims to be a man, they can be sued. The ACLU has been suing Catholic hospitals all over the nation trying to force them to adopt its anti-Catholic agenda. While it typically loses, this legislation will reverse that record.
In short, the Equality Act could put people out of work for their beliefs, according to the Heritage Foundation. Those who believe the Bible will be disallowed by law from expressing those beliefs in public. The biblical definition of marriage will be relegated to your closet. Your family will have been invaded by the federal mandates that favor homosexuality as a “protected class.”
What is occurring in Great Britain will be occurring here as well. There, the Muslim community is seeking protection from criticism by having Islam classified as a “race” via the United Nations. Those who criticize the teachings of Mohammed become “racists” with all that that word carries. No open dialogue, no open thought—just conformity. So here. No dialogue. No debate. No scientific proof—just a statist government enforcing its will.
Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, your sins have hid his face from you …therefore justice is far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us; we look for light, but behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. – Isaiah 59:1,9
In Mexico, and in Mexican communities in places such as Los Angeles, there’s a lively movement of prayer to Santa Muerte, Saint Death. You pray to her for protection from the dangers of the night, in the conviction that she can protect you from attack, accident, and violent death. She can also bring trouble to someone who has attacked you unjustly. Prayer to Santa Muerte goes back to the religious life of people in the area before the gospel came to the Americas. (1)
Our modern era is supposed to be a bold new age that has cast off its need for God and the supernatural. According to modernists who signed the Humanist Manifesto’s I & II and the Humanist Manifesto 2000 mankind has outgrown its need for “God.” In reality, however, modernists who reject God eventually opt for the false religious ideas of man—the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
By the “god of this age” the apostle Paul, who penned 2 Corinthians, referred to “all the floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations at any time current in the world.” (2) These are precisely what are lauded by today’s cultural leaders.
A recent Pew Research study found that a large and growing percentage of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology, psychics, and the presence of spirits in nature. The shock comes, however, in that not only do 6 in 10 Americans accept these beliefs, but that the numbers are the same among those who are self-professed Christians. Even agnostics have adopted occult ideas.
According to a new research by Trinity College in Connecticut, Wicca is one of the fastest-growing religions in the country. Between 1990 and 2008, it saw a forty-fold increase in the number of adherents. One-and-a-half million Americans now identify as either Wiccan or Pagan. As The Christian Post put it, “Wicca functions as a spiritual patina on progressive politics.” The occult is becoming mainstream in America. Such is a culture that continues to reject God.
Multiculturalism is not simply the recognition that there are various cultures in the world, or even represented in the United States. According to Charles Tesconi at the College of Education at the University of Vermont, multiculturalism specifically views “all value systems as equal.” The multicultural view treats all diverse groups and ways of life as equally “legitimate.”“Moral diversity” is the idea. This multicultural perspective therefore de-values biblical concepts as no more valid than any pagan or heathen belief. This is what is integrated into nearly all areas of public education and entertainment. “Diversity” is the watchword.
An example is the recent Disney movie Coco, a beautifully animated film that celebrates the Mexican tradition known as Dia de Muertos(Day of the Dead). Dia de Muertos has its roots in a “pre-Hispanic commemoration of deceased loved ones that is practiced by some Latin American indigenous populations” (Smithsonian.com). The film “draws its cultural inspiration from several Mexican variations of this tradition, which also happen to be those most commonly found in the United States.”
In the story-line, Miguel, a young boy is transported to the place of the dead in order to speak with his deceased ancestors. Cynthia Vidaurri, the writer of Smithsonian’s review, then asks:
So here is the big question: Did Disney Pixar get it right? My first response is to ask another question, ‘Right by whose standard?’ Are we talking about the indigenous traditions of celebrating ancestors as they were practiced before the arrival of the Europeans? … What about the Day of the Dead that merged with Roman Catholic practices after the arrival of the Europeans in the Americans? What about the Mexican national celebration? What about the Day of the Dead tradition introduced to the U.S. by Mexican Americans during the Chicano Movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s? Or maybe the Day of the Dead Traditions that are practices by recently immigrated Indigenous Latino populations in the U.S.?
The Smithsonian plainly challenges the cultural norm that was once common-stock in America—Christianity. Right by whose standard? There is no ultimate standard to multiculturalists. This is what we are being constantly fed, from the entertainment industry to the schoolhouse where “diversity” reigns. Little wonder that various forms of superstition such as Wicca, occultism, and prayers to Santa Muerte are being practiced. Remove the One True God from the culture and everything else becomes fashionable.
Many of Isaiah’s day (8 centuries B.C. in Israel) felt the same way. Turning away from God, however, they turned to superstition. Isaiah, the inspired prophet of God, relates that they sought spiritual guidance from “familiar spirits” and “wizards.” Some of these “chirped” and “muttered” out their instructions. Others among the Israelites assumed that dead people had access to information that was normally inaccessible to the living. They therefore sought to contact “dead people” in Sheol, especially their relatives to get guidance for the future or advice about coping with the crisis at hand—the threats from foreign nations (Isaiah 8:19).
Isaiah “bursts out” against all such occult practices that seek guidance from anything but God. “To the law and to the testimony!—if they will not speak according to His Word, there is no dawn of morning for them!” (8:20). Our culture condemns itself to the night from which there is no morning—if we do not seek spiritual guidance only from God.
(1) John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, p. 37.
(2) Fritz Rienecker & Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 463.