Featured Post

My Coming Out Story

  I wrote this in 2015; it is now 2025; I neglected to post it.  I didn’t know who Bruce Jenner was until he ‘identified’ as a woman. The st...

Thursday, February 13, 2025

My Coming Out Story

 


I wrote this in 2015; it is now 2025; I neglected to post it. 

I didn’t know who Bruce Jenner was until he ‘identified’ as a woman. The story of his gender identity complex has prompted me to tell my own coming out story, which I will do here. To announce that you’re queer or that you are not the gender that you biologically are, this is not very brave in a culture that celebrates perversity. I would not say that my coming out story is brave either. But it’s closer to bravery than Bruce Jenner’s is. 

Between 1995 and about the year 2000, I identified as a Fundamentalist-Dispensational Christian. Then, due to circumstances that I now interpret as the Providence of God, I began to identify as a Puritan. True, I can never be a bona fide Puritan because they lived from about 1550 to 1700. But in 2000 or so I began to identify as a Puritan theologically. The Fundamentalist-Dispensational school of thought began with characters such as Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby in the 1800s; and by the year 1900 it was gaining popularity broadly and swiftly. C. H. Spurgeon lived late enough to witness its ascension, and this lower-grade theology is what took over his Puritan-minded church after his departure from this world.  

The Fundamentalist-Dispensational theology is rudimentary, unrefined, unfinished, inexact, and erroneous on many points. You may be a Christian if you are of its mindset. But if you are truly seeking God for better understanding, and if God answers your prayers for more light, you will not remain in that camp. This camp sees Christianity this way: accept Jesus by your own free will; make your decision to receive forgiveness; then join programs with other Christians while resting on the assurance of eternal security while you focus on end-times. Puritanism sees Christianity this way: receive forgiveness by faith in what Christ accomplished in his life and on the cross; by this you may know that you are accepted by Christ based, ultimately, on God’s election from eternity; then you will gain confidence to persevere to prove your faith until the end by studying the whole counsel of God, focusing on mastering the main and plain things of Scripture. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism is about free will, accepting, deciding, and resting. Puritanism is about irresistible grace, acceptance, reception, and perseverance. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism is about you entering in; Puritanism is about God ushering you in. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism makes it sound like you work to get in the door; Puritanism knows better: that it is the work of God to get you in. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism likes to bask and laze in the notion of security. Puritanism knows better: that a person has a right to feel secure only insofar as he works his salvation out. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism tends to make little distinction between theism and Christianity. This is why Fundamentalist-Dispensationalists tends to treat, as Christians, any person who professes to be one based on a confession of a bare belief in the existence of God. Puritanism knows better: that even the demons are theists. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism is more about God’s love for everyone than his sovereignty over any; Puritanism is about God’s right to single out the objects of his special love and to limit this special love to them alone. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism believes that Jesus died for all; Puritanism knows better: that it is logical that Christ died for persons that God has ordained to single out, which agrees with Jesus praying for saints and future saints alone (John 17.) Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism believes that a Christian ought to love his neighbor as if he were as special as a fellow Christian; Puritanism takes note of that word ‘especially’ in Galatians 6.10, and subordinates neighborly love to love for fellows in the Faith. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism limits itself to faith and blood; Puritanism links faith to justification and links blood to redemption. Fundamentalist-Dispensationalism speaks of Jesus as an exemplar: what would Jesus do? Puritanism speaks of what Jesus did: taking man’s place, and through this act fulfilling the law of God by his life and satisfying the wrath of God by his death.   

That is just a summary sketch, from memory, of what I have learned—of what identifying as a Puritan is about. If you think that becoming a Christian draws opprobrium, try identifying as Puritanical! It is no brave act to identify as gay or queer or transgender in a current that is winding its way towards degeneracy. It is no brave act to wear pink shirts where to refuse to do so would single you out as intolerant to gays. It is no brave act to ‘walk a mile in women’s shoes’ when to play the man instead might get you fired. It is no brave act to paint your nails in support of Bruce Jenner’s new identity when to refuse to do so would single you out as a bigot. It is closer to bravery to identify as a Fundamentalist-Dispensational Christian. But it is closest to bravery to identify as Puritanical because even the loving Fundamentalist-Dispensational saints will hate you then, or at least treat you as an outsider. 

Sometimes I think that we Puritan-minded Christians should wear some piece of Puritan garb and begin wearing it in support of the doctrines of God that the world, the churches, and almost all Christians of every stripe, do not regard and would rather shun than tolerate. Then we might notice each other and become supportive friends. How many people are accepting of Jenner, and even praise him, even though they don’t want to? Is that brave? Here is something approaching to bravery: opposing in word and deed: abortion, feminism, the queer agenda, Islam, environmentalism, and the pseudo-civil-rights movement that opportunistic blacks and radical whites are coercing everyone to accept. 

Bruce Jenner got a million followers in four hours when he came out with his sappy transition story. Will I get a million followers in four hours for stating my theological change? A man who’s attempting to transgender (an impossibility) will gain a large following in a society that resembles Gomorrah and celebrates the behavior of Sodomites; but a Puritanical character will be ignored, and if not ignored, then vilified, in that same society. Who is brave? The man who announces that he will conform even more to what a lewd culture accepts? Or the Puritanical person who announces that he opposes what the lewd culture celebrates? 

Know this, however. I believe that most people in the USA and Canada would like the queer thing to go back into its closet. But the media, the politicians, the teachers, the entertainers, and the queers make the LGBT movement appear much larger than it is. In truth, it is a tiny movement that our societal megaphones blow out of proportion in order to scare traditional citizens into obeisance to new, perverted norms. They are trumpeting like the seven priests in Joshua 6 to make it look like there is more support on their side than there actually is. Today’s Christians and moralists are so far away from their Bibles that heathen people who are as ignorant as Old Testament Canaanites were, are fooling them by biblical tricks. And the remnants of our virtue, freedom, and peace are being plundered by these tricks. These neo-Canaanites are as ruthless as the pilgrims who settled America were holy. If we had just one Puritanical Christian for every ten of them, though, they would soon be eying their closets for a refuge once again. “And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight” (Leviticus 26.8.) With just a little religion like that which came down from heaven during the days of George Whitefield and William Grimshaw, the wicked would make themselves scarce indeed! It would be like in the phrase that is found near the end of Proverbs. “The wicked flee when no man pursueth” (Proverbs 28.1.)


Saturday, February 8, 2025

A Typical Pentecostal Pulpit



An old friend of mine requested that I listen to a certain minister in his neck of the woods. I did that, and then offered to him the following observations on the man’s latest sermon. I expected the loose interpretation of Scripture and the failed articulation (which I said nothing about in the critique.) But it is the emphasis on ‘signs’ that makes the sermon so representative of Pentecostal preaching. 

Correspondence

September 2013

Hi _____, I put off listening to a sermon from that church you told me about because I suspected that it would be a negative experience. It was just about what I expected, for I know what to expect from Pentecostal ministers. So here, I have prepared some comments on the sermon for you. I may send these notes to the pastor in question, without mentioning your name, of course. I might polish them up a little more before I do that, maybe not. Anyway, here are the notes as they stand so far. 

(Now I don’t doubt for a moment that this man is ‘a nice guy.’ What is his pulpit performance like? This is the question that you need an answer to.)

The Critique

Brantford Worship Centre, Pastor Norbert Lava, September 1st, 2013, Defining Moments, Judges 6. 

To summarize very briefly, Mr. Lava teaches this: We all have defining moments; they set the course for our lives; we ought to get involved and not hide, for God wants to bless us. Some defining moments in the lives of Bible characters are rehearsed for us in order to bring the message home. The main point of the sermon, though, is that God is okay with granting us a sign to confirm some defining moment in our lives, and he may do it through this prophet or that. 

Not long after the sermon begins, mention is made of a pastor who prophesied over ‘certain people’ (probably some members of Mr. Lava’s church.) The instance is mentioned in order to show how hard it is to interpret a prophecy like that to our lives. Then Mr. Lava has the nerve to denounce false prophets! Who are the false prophets? The false prophets are those who ‘prophesy’ over us and then allow us to be in confusion over it. The true prophet interprets the word of God instead. What is the difference between God bestowing to Gideon a sign and these modern-day Pentecostal prophets prophesying over us? The sign from God can be readily interpreted. If God is okay with us asking for a sign, as Mr. Lava says, then be sure of at least this: he will entrust that sign to someone better equipped to give it than the man who prophesied confusion over this people at the Brantford Worship Centre! And how equipped is Mr. Lava? He is not equipped to teach, much less be a medium to convey signs!

Pretty soon the subject turns to bodily healing and healing from demonic oppression. “Mighty man of valor! Mighty woman of valor! That’s your potential!” How will this people interpret exclamations like these? Because of what Mr. Lava focuses on, the congregation will interpret them in a materialistic way. The people will hear, in such exclamations, promises of fame, health, or prosperity. Their eyes will be turned to earthly things that are ready to perish instead of virtues, graces, and things above. 

This message is calculated to puff people up, not humble them before God. It will make people proud. ‘I can’t’ should not be part of our vocabulary, says the pastor. What if we, unlike Gideon, are pursuing a path (maybe because of some ‘sign’ or ‘prophecy’ from a wacked out pastor) that is not the one we should be on? Would it not be good to say ‘I can’t’ in that instance? I think it might be a good thing to say ‘I can’t’ go to the Brantford Worship Centre to get taught the Bible, especially since the pastor there denigrates education in his sermon. 

In addition to examples from the Bible, a defining moment from the pastor’s life is used to teach about defining moments: when his church came up with, or gave out, 100 backpacks. Is that the best example the man can give? I hope not. He should be able to come up with some better example than that, especially considering that he has personally witnessed a person being raised from the dead! Yes, with that tidbit of information, we know right where this pastor is at. He’s right on the Pentecostal track, swallowing deceit and spreading lies. If there are resurrections going on and apostles in the midst, like he asserts, why all the effort to produce an experience near the end of this sermon by playing music in the foreground of the message? The man is interactive with his audience during the main part of his message (asking them to repeat this and that phrase or word) because his sermon and preaching have no power. And then near the end he hopes that music will do the job. The worst of it is that he makes false promises of great magnitude too, like: “You shall not die.” People die every day, Mr. Lava, even Pentecostal persons, no matter what defining moment they’ve had, no matter what sign they think God gave, and no matter what lying prophecy the last Pentecostal minister belched out of his blasphemous mouth. 

I append some correspondence (my side of it) about the sermon and my critique of it. 

Correspondence

Thanks _____, I will listen to that sermon one more time to make sure of all the points that I made. I usually listen twice to everything I critique. It is a given that a person who goes to a Pentecostal Assembly to learn (not to listen critically) cannot be very swift. If he were swift, you would not find him there trying to learn something because he would know better. 

Correspondence

Yes, these people are ignorant about history and what's going on in the world. But they know a lot about movies, toys, and the latest program line-up on television. More importantly, they are ignorant of the most important doctrines of God: like justification, redemption, and the substitution of Jesus on the cross. Because Pentecostal ministers are so ignorant, proud, and misleading, I pull no punches in my criticisms of what they preach. The resurrection of Christ means little to these people; but the rumor that someone might have been raised from the dead around town somewhere, this is everything. The truth seems like nothing to them, while lies take center stage. I get a little angry about that because it is through diversions, lies, and deceit that souls are being led down the path toward hell.

Correspondence

Yes, I get what you say. Well, I have listened to that crummy sermon for a second time, and had to change very little in my critique before I sent it off to Mr. Lava. May the lava of hot criticism do Mr. Lava some good! May it burn off some of the dross that he is encrusted with!


Friday, February 7, 2025

The Making of a Malapropism

 


In a video that I saw the other day, a pundit was ridiculing a man for asserting that one cannot pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps, and for asserting, therefore, that any man saying that one could do it nullified the point that he was using the expression to enforce. No one seemed to care about the man’s concern for the proper use of an aphorism, not to mention the corollary that an improper use of one undermined the point that the aphorism was used to prop up. Who cares more about sense than emotion in arguments these days? Who bothers to look up the expressions that pundits use? Because the masses don’t care for sense, the misuse of an expression does not preclude the abuser of one from winning an argument. He wins only in the minds of ignorant listeners. But since the ignorant make up the majority of those who are listening, he wins in practice if not in theory, which is what counts in life, outside of academia, and even inside academia these days.

Few boots have straps on them. Cowboy boots do. But few people wear boots like that, even out west. For this reason, maybe, the original intention of the bootstrap expression has been lost. Now it is used to mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean, which meaning makes no sense. That bootstraps would snap before helping a person raise himself up or off the ground by them should be obvious to anyone who can imagine trying it. But who will bother to imagine? Moreover, since pulling on bootstraps pushes the body down instead of up, this makes bootstraps of no use in pulling a man up no matter how strong the bootstraps are. But who cares about that?  

The conventional opinion is that the bootstrap expression was dreamed up to mean that one can succeed, with enough effort, on one’s own. This opinion is obviously false. Why would someone teach a lesson on succeeding by coining a maxim that illustrates an impossible thing to do? The origin of the phrase, then, if we could find it, would probably read something like this: A person would be as likely to raise himself in the air by his bootstraps as find gold in that there mine! I have read the bootstrap expression properly used: in the way that I have just demonstrated. I came across it in an old book that I cannot recollect the title of.  

The misapplication of a word or expression is called a malapropism. I have lately witnessed, I believe, the making of one, which is strangely exciting, for this must be, like the time I found two one hundred dollar bills in the alley, one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I did not record the date of its coinage. But it is now nearing the end of March, 2020, and I heard it about one month ago, two at the most. Now this malapropism is on its way to becoming as widespread as the one about bootstraps, and, to men who hate language rot, just as infamous. I don’t believe that this malapropism will ever be traced farther back than when Mark Levin uttered it. The way that he said it leads me to believe that he is its originator. While referring to some controversial subject or character, he said this as his reaction: “I’ll keep my powder dry—for now.” He does not know that a promise to have wet powder is ridiculous and self-defeating because he does not know that keeping your powder dry is a necessity if you want your musket to fire. ‘Keep your powder dry’ has been an idiom for being cautious and ready since the time muskets were used and maybe even since gunpowder was used. But now the idiom is uttered as if keeping powder dry is something that is done until the time of firing, as if wet powder is what you need when you finally do fire. Even if what were meant is that the powder may soon be wet with blood, that would not be true since it is not the powder that hits the body, but the ball. The first time I heard the malapropism repeated was about a week or two after Mark Levin coined it. Because it was done by Ezra Levant, another radio host, I have little doubt that Levant got it from Levin. The next time I heard it was on WBAP in Texas on the Chris Plank Show, the same radio station that airs the Mark Levin Show. I predict that the malapropism is on its way to pulling itself up by its bootstraps and that it will soon be rocketing into promiscuous use. In spite of its wet powder, it is perhaps already traveling like a bullet fired from a dry barrel, and it is too late to stop it. 

A couple of weeks after writing this Making of a Malapropism, I was reading what is called a Supplement in John Howie’s Lives of the Scots Worthies, published in the year 1775. Because of what I saw in there, I decided to come back to add something. The most basic meaning of ‘keep your powder dry’ may be found in the Supplement: “In crossing the Logan a little above the Waterside, he unfortunately fell into the water and destroyed his powder.” Further down the page we read that he ‘laid down his useless weapon.’ Water had made his powder wet, thus rendering his musket inoperable. You do not plan to keep your powder dry ‘for now.’ You try to keep it dry, period. It is ignorant to say that you will keep your powder dry ‘for now.’     

A malapropism can tell us some important things about its user. Mark Levin’s use of it tells us that he is not as informed as he leads us to believe about the time period that he writes about. A man who doesn’t know about the necessity of keeping powder dry cannot have read that much about the historical period of America’s Founding Fathers. Or, if he has, it has been narrowly. He might have read some Federalist Papers and about Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. But it is doubtful that he has read full-length histories of the American Revolution and Civil War. The necessity of keeping gunpowder dry, along with the admonition to do so, predates those events. But it is also prominent during those events. Can a person be an expert about any facet of 18th century America without knowing what ‘keep your powder dry’ means? This is doubtful. We learn from Levin’s malapropism that he is not as learned as he should be, especially after publishing books called The Liberty Amendments and Rediscovering Americanism. I cannot believe that a person can be very well-informed about politics in 18th century America and at the same time say, without joking, “I’ll keep my powder dry—for now.” For certain he was not joking when he said it. I distinctly remember the grave tone that he used. As for those who repeat popular maxims that they hear, like Misters Levant and Plank, we learn that they are not as wary as the admonition to ‘keep your powder dry’ warns them to be. 

I have no knowledge of Chris Plank, having heard his radio show only once. But I have listened to Mark Levin and Ezra Levant for years. I have learned a lot from each one; I am thankful for their work; and I am more conservative than both of them together. So this essay has no other purpose than to signal the birth of a malapropism and to point out that there is something to be learned from a person’s use of one. “My son, hear the instruction of thy father” (Proverbs 1.8.) Yes, at least hear your ancestor enough to know that you don’t merely keep your powder dry for now.


Wednesday, February 5, 2025

The Last CBC Program

 


Canada’s CBC is funded by Canadian taxpayers. The bill is a huge one: $1.4 billion dollars per year. If there are 40 million Canadian citizens, this means that each citizen pays $35.00 a year for CBC content. It is impossible, though, for any fair, righteous, or decent person to get his thirty-five dollars’ worth because the CBC is not only unfair, unrighteous, and indecent, it has gotten increasingly hateful towards Canada’s white citizens, its white families, and especially its white men: the patriarchs. This hatred, moreover, is malicious towards all citizens because the agenda pushing the hatred is for causing divisions among ethnic groups, religions, sects, and genders. This makes the CBC worse than worthless. It makes it destructive content that we are made to pay for. 

As recently as twenty some years ago, say the year 2000, hosts at the CBC spoke favorably of the Candu Reactor, Canada’s nuclear power plant technology, and they did this regularly, which baffled me. Then, all of a sudden, there was no more mention of it. What does this mean? For a long time, obviously, there had been a top-down order to sing the praises of nuclear power; then the order was reversed, and the choir went silent. Nuclear power is not something that a CBC host would take it upon himself or herself to talk about. It is the kind of thing that a host is ordered to talk about. CBC hosts don’t decide what news they will report. The ‘news’ they report is whatever they are told to read. They are not journalists or even reporters. They are mindless repeaters of narratives. If you listen to CBC Radio, for example, from Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Halifax, and you do this consecutively, you will notice, if you pay attention, that the narrative is the same all down the line, all the way from coast to coast. This would not be the case if CBC hosts were allowed to actually report the news. Some hosts, for example, would question the Liberal narrative concerning feminism, global warming, gun rights, Islam, residential schools, gay marriage, transgenderism, or Covid-19. This would happen even though practically every CBC host is a socialist because even socialists voice disagreement if they are allowed to do so.    

CBC programs, too, are written in stone for their hosts. Just like what happens at the news desks, programs must conform to the commandments even to the point of breaking none. ‘Thou shalt kill the Candu Reactor’ means to never mention that thing again; and if you are ever told to voice the narrative on it, you’d better stick to it being good or bad just like it has been decided from on high at CBC headquarters. That’s the interpretation of that commandment. I know it just as if I had been on the CBC Mount on the day that the commandment was given. I know it just as if I had been convinced of the holiness of the command by the sight of a burning bush. CBC hosts have certain liberties of speech and conduct accorded to them during their prosecution of programs. These liberties are not very wide, only about as wide as the gutter behind a cow. They are much deeper than they are wide, though, about as deep as if the gutter went down to hell by way of a bottomless pit. The perimeter of narrative-talk is a small space; the griminess of said talk, that has no bottom. For example, no matter how frequently the narratives of sexism, racism, and the manifold phobias are discussed, these discussions amount only to a wee bit of width compared to what could be discussed; but the defamations that attend sexism, racism, and the sundry phobias—these may be as endless for depth as the most biblical abysses. The characters that are sketched are circumscribed; the corrupting of characters is unconstrained. In other words, you may talk about white men and boys, or even of colonists, conservatives, and Christians; but when you do you’d better dig down deep to find some dung to fling.        

The CBC radio programs that were at least sort of good were discontinued about a couple of decades ago. (It is now 2025 as I write this.) The rest were contaminated by radical narratives. So over the years, due to their propaganda, hatred, and poisoned content, the CBC programs that I listened to fell one by one into disuse. The only one that I listen to now, and probably the last one that I will listen to with regularity, is a French one called, ‘Aujourd’hui L’histoire.’ It is biased, of course; but I listen to it in order to retain my French and because its content is historical. I don’t give it undivided attention; it’s not worth that kind of honor; so I listen while shaving, doing the laundry, or when engaged in some other boring task. And while I listen, I criticize and mock. This makes the show almost tolerable. So when I listen, I watch for two things: how many grunts the host will do, and how many times the word ‘effectivement’ will be uttered. The grunting may be noticed in the current host, the former host, and even the man who fills in. These two characteristics of the show are pathetic but entertaining. I used to count the grunts and the number of times ‘effectivement’ occurred, episode by episode. But after awhile that got pedantic and made me feel eccentric.    

CBC radio reporting is fake content; often it is fake even in the way it is delivered. A host will pretend to interview a guest about something; but you can tell that they both are trying hard to make it seem like they’re not reading what they say. Sometimes I turn on the CBC at random just to see how fake it still is. I did this, for example, on June 12, 2021, and found the CBC show called, ‘The Debaters.’ What do you talk about when you are not allowed to debate important matters like the open border in Quebec or the Covid hype? On this day they debated whether ice cream should be consumed in a cone or in a cup. Then they debated trampolines versus swimming pools. Later that same day I landed in the middle of a program about taking a ‘body positive journey,’ by which was meant having the courage to liberate your body by exposing your arms and thighs, no matter how fat they are. Is it not worth thirty-five bucks to hear essential debating like that? 

I make fun of nonsense like CBC content because the people responsible for it need to be shamed. Fools, however, which is what CBC hosts and their allies are, who and what do they mock? They mock the righteous and righteousness. “Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour” (Proverbs 14.9) CBC personnel need to be ashamed; they need to feel their sins; they need to be fired; they need to repent; they need forgiveness; they need to do something good for society for a change.


Monday, February 3, 2025

Remembrance Day Hatred at the CBC

 


I turned on the radio on November 11th, 2020 in order to hear something about Remembrance Day. Within a minute or two I heard the host, a male, say this: “On this day we pause to remember the women and men….” I don’t know exactly how that sentence ended because those few words were so belittling to the men who fought and died in the wars that the rest of the sentence was obscured by the fog of anger running through my mind.

Putting women before men as soldiers to be remembered is not a matter of a CBC host being polite and chivalrous. It is the CBC putting women before men because at the CBC men are systemically hated. That the CBC host was free to mention the men first in that sentence—this is doubtful. The CBC is so authoritarian that that was probably not an option. If he spoke like this without being told to do so, it is almost enough to make us believe that he is of a third gender— call it ‘sissy-man,’ ‘girlie-man,’ or ‘fifi-man’ or some other moniker that would make you imagine some unmanly form of manhood. 

Did women die in battle in WW1? They did not. Did women die in battle in WW2? They did not. Did women die in battle in Korea? They did not. Did women die in battle in Afghanistan? At least one Canadian woman did. But even if many women had died in battle in that war, there would be no justification for saying that we pause on Remembrance Day to remember ‘the women and men.’ The right thing to do would be to say, not that ‘we pause to remember the women and men,’ not even that ‘we pause to remember the men and women,’ but simply that ‘we pause to remember the men.’ The word ‘men’ implies ‘women’ if there were any. That is the generic rule. If there is one woman alderman among many men aldermen, that is a council of aldermen. If there is one woman postman among many men postmen, that is a company of postmen. If there is one woman soldier among many men soldiers, that is a section, or platoon, or company of men. That is what soldiers are called. When a section commander calls his soldiers together, he says, “Okay, gather around men.” At least that’s what he used to say: before effeminate orders came down from feminist Ottawa. 

You might think that this is a small thing to be angry over. If this is what you think, you do not realize that the military is being taken down incrementally by a thousand belittling steps just like this one. Soon it will be too ‘toxically’ masculine to have any Remembrance Day celebrations at all. We’re almost there already. 

Before I turned the radio off—which did not take more than a few minutes—I took note of these other belittling steps. The CBC had to interview someone about war. So what was done? They found a ‘woman expert’ from a university who said this: “We’re not a militaristic people, but we have been engaged in wars around the world.” So a people engaged in ‘wars around the world’ are not militaristic? This is like saying that the people of Sodom were not sodomites (see Genesis), that the Cretans were never liars (see Titus), and that the Galatians were never foolish (see Galatians.) This female ‘expert’ doesn’t want Canadians to have been militaristic; that is why she spoke contradictorily. Meanwhile beyond the studio over at the war memorial, the CBC’s masters in Ottawa had chosen two men to read some words on war. At least the readers were men; but what they read was trashed nonetheless. How was the reading messed up? They had an English-speaking man read French; and they had a French-speaking man read English. That way English-speaking Canadians could be humiliated by hardly understanding war memories in broken English; and French-speaking Canadians could be humiliated by hardly understanding war memories in broken French. For example, the Frenchman spoke, not of ‘hope,’ but of ‘ope’; and of the ‘vilnerable’ instead of the ‘vulnerable.’ It wasn’t his fault; English is just not his native tongue. 

I have no doubt that Remembrance Day and its traditional poppy will soon be as controversial as a Trump presidency and a MAGA hat. There are at least three other poppies vying to replace the traditional one. There is the anti-remembrance white poppy; there is the black poppy for persons of darker skin than white; and there is the LGBT rainbow poppy, as if so many queers and fake gender persons have died in trenches. ‘We pause to remember the women and men’ may lead to ‘we pause to remember the black lives’ and ‘we pause to remember the non-binary persons.’ To pause to remember the actual soldiers who died in war will be regarded as a racist-sexist remembrance because almost all of them were white men; therefore this remembrance—the only factually based remembrance there is—will be disallowed. 

How did it come to pass that the word ‘woman’ was derived from the word ‘man’ and that the word ‘man’ was used to denote both genders when appropriate for use generically ? It came to pass through acts of creation by God. Man’s body was created from dust; woman was created from the man’s rib. “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2.23.) Not only this, but she was created for man, not the other way around. “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11.9.) It is improper, being unbiblical, to exalt woman at the expense of man, as the CBC did when one of its pawns uttered, “On this day we pause to remember the women and men….” On Remembrance Day, therefore, we pause to remember the men.


Friday, January 31, 2025

Brief Analysis of 'Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup'


 

In 2015 I wrote an extensive analysis of the ‘9/11 Truth Documentary—Grave Implications.’ In November of 2021, knowing that ‘health measures’ like the wearing of masks, the lock-downs, and the Covid-19 vaccines were unnecessary, harmful, and rooted in the love of power and money, I heard a well-spoken man argue the old saw that ‘9/11 was an inside job.’ The response to Covid-19 being an ‘inside job,’ as it were, made me consider what this man was saying about 9/11 being an ‘inside job.’ This man articulated his view so well and so convincingly that I decided to watch the 9/11 documentary that he recommended, called ‘Loose Change 9/11: an American Coup.’ I did not subject ‘Loose Change’ to the scrutiny that I had subjected ‘Grave Implications’ to. But I took a few notes as I watched the film.  

I do not object to the allegation that the US government was at least negligent enough in its duties that 9/11 could have, and should have, been foiled. But this is far from agreeing that the 9/11 acts of terrorism were evil deeds concocted and brought to pass from the ‘inside.’ I am relieved to see, in light of what I have already written about 9/11, that few points are needed to cast doubt on the ‘Loose Change’ thesis that ‘9/11 was an inside job.’ 

Point number one: When President Bush ‘claimed, more than once,’ that ‘he saw the first strike live on television.’ I don’t get what this is supposed to prove—something about timing, maybe that he saw the strike as an eyewitness while everyone else saw it on television later, which would mean, I guess, that he somehow colluded to make 9/11 happen. What President Bush meant by this ‘claim’ was that he saw the first strike on the first tower ‘live’ in the sense in which we all saw it: in replays on television of it happening in real time.   

Point number two: On the presence of neo-thermite in or on the tiny piece of debris that was examined. The detection of neo-thermite is supposed to prove that explosives were used to take the towers down. I don’t know if neo-thermite has to have come from explosives. But suppose that this is the rule. And suppose that neo-thermite was found. What would this prove? If the apartment of a soldier that I visited in 1990 or so had been destroyed by a plane crashing into it, neo-thermite would probably have been found in the debris. How come? Because this soldier, which is common to do among soldiers, had collected used ordnance memorabilia. How many articles of used ordnance memorabilia must have been contained in twin towers that were among the largest buildings ever to have stood on the earth since the beginning of the world—twin towers that hundreds of military aficionados worked in? 

Point number three: On the puffs of smoke that may be observed, on slow motion video, just below the levels at which the buildings are collapsing. These puffs of smoke are supposed to prove that explosives were planted in the buildings and that the charges are going off as the buildings are coming down. What’s really happening? These puffs of smoke are natural explosions caused by pressure. This can be demonstrated by crushing a cardboard cup or an empty box of tissue with your foot. Air is forced outward as these items are crushed from the top. You can actually feel the air rush out as you do this. 

Point number four: About what happened at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. It is accepted by almost all of us that on 9/11, Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. In ‘Loose Change’ we are told that no airliners were involved in either of these events. What ‘truthers’ never address—and what is not addressed in ‘Loose Change’—are the locations of the airliners, the passengers, and the crews of these two flights. Where are they? Are these airliners parked somewhere? Have the people that were on them been abducted by aliens? We are not told. We are not told because every answer that could be proffered would sound insane. 

9/11 ‘truther’ videos are good for nothing except for use in teaching principles of critical thought. They are useful only in this negative sense. They take things out of context. They are scientific up to a point; that is, they break down analytically. And they have no good answers—sometimes no answers at all—to the hardest questions. 

The hardcore conspiracy theorist—the kind that refuses to receive reasonable answers to good questions—likes to leave the event that he theorizes about, unresolved in some aspects. He likes to leave some aspects of the event hanging because this makes his dull life at least sort of mysterious; and it gives him an excuse to revisit the event an indefinite number of times. It is his hobby to talk about it; and if he can make the hobby his bread and butter also, so much the better in his estimation, and so much the happier is he because of it. But 9/11 is more than just his hobby. It is as difficult to get a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist to give up his hobby as it is to drag the heroin addict away from his drug; 9/11 ‘truthing’ is the radical conspiracy theorist’s favorite drug—a drug more addictive by far than speculating about other mysterious events, like the assassination of JFK, for example. JFK speculation is just a gateway drug to 9/11 ‘truthing.’ JFK speculating is just low grade marijuana; 9/11 ‘truthing’ is the nastiest heroin. It’s the dirtiest, most addictive gutter-drug that a conspiracy devotee can get into his mind. What do we have in the JFK assassination? We have a president, his first lady, a motorcade, a grassy knoll, a hidden shooter, and brains blown out: BORING. That’s boring compared to what has happened since. No event is more exciting to the hardcore conspiracy enthusiast than the event known as 9/11 because 9/11 has more bells and whistles than you can blow a party horn at: skyscrapers, airliners, hijackers, jet fuel, fire trucks, infernos, implosions, blood, smoke, fear, screams, begging, pleading, panic suicides, and utter pandemonium. You’d think this would be enough, but NO. Correction, maybe to the conspiracy zealot this many bells and whistles amounts to an overdose; this is why he takes a couple of airliners out. This omission, like Narcan, brings him back to life; and he is so glad to be back among the living. But now, because of the sobering effect of Narcan, he needs to be re-inebriated. So he watches a couple of 9/11 videos, being careful, this time, to come short of an overdose by pretending that Flight 77 and Flight 93 never crashed. Then he lies back on his easy chair once again, relieved to be back under the heady influence of his favorite drug; and with his inebriated conspiratorial pals, he begins, for the thousandth time, to carelessly discuss what pathetic mourners only cry about. Don’t disturb the 9/11 ‘truther’ by asking him hard questions that he needs to leave unanswered for the continued, ongoing, never-ending enjoyment of his preeminent drug. 

What should the 9/11 ‘truther’ be doing instead of getting high on 9/11 conspiracy theories? He should be doing what we all should be doing: “redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5.16.) Why treat time as precious? It should be treated as precious because it is a limited resource. After it is gone, there is no more time to turn to God and place faith in Christ for salvation. If faith is not obtained and repentance is not undertaken, sin, instead of being forgiven, will be judged. And being judged for sin will be worse than 9/11 because punishment for sin will be everlasting.


Thursday, January 30, 2025

Christian Elitism

 


For two or three years I listened to a broadcast called, the Whitehorse Inn, a Reformed-minded discussion among four Christian men who occupied positions of leadership in God’s Church. The ‘usual cast of characters’ on this program were: Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger, and Ken Jones. I enjoyed their work, and benefited from it. I especially liked the following three series that they collaborated on: Recovering Scripture, Christ-less Christianity, and Post-Christian Culture. Their views were solid; their delivery was proficient; their banter was tolerable; their elitism was under the current. 

One day their elitism broke the surface of the current, and its ugliness was exposed to view. It came into view by the mouth, I think, of Michael Horton. It happened during a question and answer period before a live audience. A young lady asked what manual the men turned to for their theological terms or etymological definitions, something like that. The Whitehorse Inn panelist—Michael Horton, I think—answered by giving a political non-answer. It was clear that he didn’t want her—or the rest of us—to know what manual he made such good use of. After he gave his non-answer, she put the question to him in a pointed way that left him no way out. She said something like: “But what is the actual manual that you use because I want one for my own studies.” He would either tell her, or be embarrassed in front of everyone and possibly off the stage. Grudgingly, then, he told her what the manual was. 

I tried to listen to the Whitehorse Inn after that shameful moment of elitism. But I could never get the elitism out of my mind as I listened; after trying a few episodes more, I quit listening completely. 

A leader in God’s Church is supposed to be a teacher, never an elitist, never a cabalist, never mason-like. He should not want to lord it over his listeners as if threatened that someone among them might, by listening or by turning to his own enlightened sources, become as knowledgeable as he is. He should be like Moses, who said, “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11.29.) Not to argue for women holding positions of leadership in God’s Church by quoting this verse to support my protest, but to apply its principle. The sin that Moses reproves Joshua for tempting him with, this he calls ‘envy.’ It was Joshua who envied; but Moses was tempted by Joshua to envy too. The word ‘envy’ means to be zealous in a bad sense. It is bad to be zealous concerning a high station in life, which inevitably involves looking down on others who are not so highly occupied. It is one thing to envy someone for having what you want but do not have, as in Rachel envying her sister for having children (Genesis 30.1.) It surely must be worse to envy someone for his or her potential to have what you have. It must be worse because in this case you want, not merely to equal the status of another, but to deny someone the status that you have. Wanting to keep someone down must be worse than wanting to rise up to where someone is. And where knowledge is concerned, as in the issue between the lady and Michael Horton, the sin of envy is great indeed. The lady was not envious. She wanted the knowledge, understanding, and instruction that Solomon commands us to get. And this is what God commands the leaders in God’s Church to communicate to those who ask for it. These facts are so obvious to any persons who have read the Bible that they are unnecessary to prove by verses or even citations. 

Envy is an ugly thing; it is what love does not do. “Charity envieth not” (1 Corinthians 13.4.) One time I invited an old buddy from Ontario to Alberta and into my apartment so that he could find employment in my city. Once there, he gathered information on a line of work that I also was desirous of looking into. But he refused to share what information he had found. I, like he did, simply wanted a job; he was envious concerning knowledge. Withholding knowledge about work is almost not worth mentioning beside the suppression of a manual that knowledge about sacred things might be gleaned from. 

To support the Whitehorse Inn, listeners were solicited to sign up as Innkeepers, Architects, or Reformers. The Whitehorse Inn’s ‘usual cast of characters’ could not come up with a scheme by which all signers would be accorded a ‘Reformer’ title? The temptation in this pitch was that a listener would be called a ‘Reformer’ if only enough money were given. Anyone with only ‘two mites’ to give would have to be called something less, even though this kind of giver is the kind praised by the Lord (Mark 12.41-44.) And what does exclusive name-calling do but tempt persons to envy? 

It is interesting and revealing that only the term Innkeeper evokes the blue-collar worker, which is the one that is given the lowest station in the scheme. Sixteenth century Reformers did not look down on low stations in life, but wanted the plowboy to know as much as the man in Oxford or Cambridge knew. The best of them, at least, were not elitists. “I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84.10.) I do not say that the Whitehorse panelists dwell in the tents of wickedness; but the verse lacks sense if quoted in part. It is more than okay, says the Bible, to be an innkeeper, even though at the Whitehorse Inn it is the lowest place.     

The Whitehorse Inn is not necessary in the age of digital abundance. Puritan sermons and Puritan books may be accessed by anyone who desires the virtues that Solomon advises everyone to obtain. Given the meticulousness of Puritan material, it is evident that these holy giants did not begrudge anyone the acquisition of knowledge. They were not envious. They were not Christian elitists. The Whitehorse Inn table-talkers could confess their elitism, turn away from it, and what Christian would not believe in God blessing them for it? If it has not happened yet, I hope that it will. Their show, if they still do it, could do a lot more good than they realize because sound theology, which is what they broadcast, is not popular, but perennially necessary. Their show is not necessary; but sound theology is; and it might as well come through them as through anyone.


Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Grass Roots Quiz

 


Can You Sympathize with the Common Man?


Or,


Are You Disconnected from these Grass Roots Taxpayers?



Have you ever washed your clothes in a laundromat? 


Have you ever lived in a basement suite or a bachelor suite? 


Have you ever had a roommate for financial reasons? 


Have you ever picked berries for a pie to be made? 


Have you ever worked on a construction site or washed pots and pans for a living? 


Have you ever milked a cow?  


Have you ever had blisters on your palms or feet from working?


Do you have a close relative or good friend who’s in the military or who drives a tractor-trailer for a living? 


For men: have you ever changed a tire? For women, have you ever knitted socks or mittens?  


For men: have you ever killed an animal while hunting? For women: have you ever caught a fish while fishing? 


8-10: You get an A. You are a blade of grass. No matter how rich you get, remember what you are, where you come from, and act like it. 


5-7: You get a B. You may be a blade of grass. Do not lose the connections that you have. How about taking your clothes to the laundromat this weekend to kindle your green sensibilities? 


2-4: You get a C. If you are a blade of grass, you are barely one. It may be that you have lived, or are living, in ivory tower society. If you have some relatives or friends who are greener than you are, how about showing more interest in their lives? If you don’t have green relatives or friends, you are in danger of looking down on the grass roots. 


0-1: You get an F. I don’t see how you can possibly be a grass roots member of society. I hope you never call yourself one. It may be that like a certain billionaire, you connect and sympathize with grassy citizens. I hope so. In that case, you get an A for being a humble aristocrat. If, however, you are in an ivory tower looking down on the grass with contempt, climb down, get with some grass, and get some dirt under your skin. You will be encouraged by the connections that you make, and you will be on your way to achieving a greener grade.

 

We are not saved from guilt and hell by how low or high our station in life is. But how high in life is most consistent with acknowledging the LORD and obeying his commandments? “Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain” (Proverbs 30.8, 9.) Congruent with this, churches have been populated, more often than not, by persons of the middle class, persons who like both law and order and modest lifestyles. We are not reconciled to God through middle class living; but this is where we are most apt to find ourselves humble enough and civil enough to reach out to ‘the God of the whole earth’ (Isaiah 54.5.) And the middle class is the best and happiest place to be after we have got, by repentance and faith, Jesus Christ for our Redeemer.


Tuesday, January 28, 2025

Judging Prime Minister Trudeau

 



What is our judgment of Prime Minister Trudeau? We judge by fact-based opinion and voting. God judges based on the attribute of omniscience; his verdict hinges on his attribute of righteousness. Because he has made the national debt to double all on his own, because of his childish antics on the world stage, because of the dangerous ‘refugees’ that he has imported, because of the abortions that he is funding at home and abroad, because of the vandalism and violence that he is facilitating, because of the multitudes of Covid mandate deaths, Prime Minister Trudeau is making himself so ripe for judgment that it is a wonder that he hasn’t fallen from the tree yet. God’s patience is wonderful. It would be unchristian not to admit that God’s longsuffering is wonderful beyond words toward all of us. Not one of us deserves a drop of God’s wonderful patience. A Christian may, though, and must, as bashfully and boldly as he can, expose the works of darkness that sinners are guilty of; especially must this be done when the sins are great and are being committed by the man whose business it is, from the political standpoint, to work the hardest for the welfare, not the wreckage, of the nation.

Justin Trudeau is a nominal Roman Catholic. He has never renounced the religion. Therefore it may be that he thinks he is a Christian. Besides all the other fires, as it were, that this man is guilty of starting and fanning, he has been guilty of kindling literal fires and of keeping them going. He could stop the hysteria over unmarked gravesites. He could stop the arson attacks against churches. He could deport immigrants and illegal migrants who are calling for the death of Jews. He knows that it would be good for Canada and Canadians to do these things. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4.17.) The sense here, says Matthew Poole, is that to him it is sin ‘indeed’ and that consequently he will be punished with greater severity because of it. Mr. Trudeau has a lot of plans. He must have many plans to spend the money that kickback-schemers have deposited into his ‘Foundation.’ Why does the ‘Foundation’ exist except for these plans? What does the Bible say to such plans? “Go to now, ye that say, today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4.13-15.) We ought to fear God in proportion to how large our plans are and how few years we have left on earth to put these plans into effect. Our fear would be great then; it would be so great that we would burn our bucket lists and then crush the bucket that they were contained in. Or, if we have a bucket for lists, the only list in it should be a list of what we plan to do for God, and even then only ‘if the Lord will.’ A PM who is doing to Canada what Trudeau is doing to it should take notice of how surprisingly God has taken wicked rulers out of the world. King Ahab had big plans. He would have liked to continue enjoying ‘the ivory house which he made’ (1 Kings 22.39) and the vineyard he stole from the man that he and his wife killed to get (1 Kings 21.) He had a clever plan to go on living, robbing, tyrannizing, and merry-making. But God out-clevered him by a ‘random’ incident (1 Kings 22.34), ending his days before Ahab could get back to his ivory house or vineyard even one more time. Wicked rulers do not often repent. Many of us hope they will. We hope to see it happen in our lifetime even in Canada. That it will occur is one of my favorite, frequent prayers. 

Trudeau’s biggest enemy is God; his next biggest enemy is himself. He seems like a pretty safe man with his secret service goons always nearby. And he is pretty safe from his most frustrated citizens because all they want is to be left alone by the government. But pride goes before a fall; few Canadians are more proud than Trudeau is; and God especially hates ‘a proud look’ (Proverbs 6.17.) Watch clips of Question Period and see for yourself if anyone in Ottawa can compete with Trudeau’s proud look. This passage in Proverbs includes a list of seven sins that are ‘abominations’ to the LORD. Trudeau may be easily shown to be guilty of them all, even of having ‘hands that shed innocent blood’ because he incites the hatred that leads to attempted murder, he mandated poisonous vaccines to be taken, and he winks at terrorism. Indeed, thirteen year old Marrisa Shen would not have been murdered by Ibrahim Ali in 2017 if Trudeau had not let the murderer into our country as a ‘refugee’ from Syria. Trudeau can be seen on video laughing or scoffing at questions about this murder. He believes that he’s unaccountable. He believes that he can open the way to arson, attempted murder, and even murder, and still not be held accountable. He will not be held to account in this life; the most corrupt politicians these days are above the law. But no one is fully held to account until Judgment Day anyway. That day is coming; it will come; nothing can stop its arrival. The way world leaders act and get away with what they do, we are tempted to doubt, in our weakest moments, if they can ever be made to listen to even one word of reproof. They sin; they refuse to answer questions; and off they strut to sin more at large. Year after year after year they do this. When they do take notice of a question, they talk around it or make fun of it. What can we do? They have the power; we are the peons. To wink and scoff at capital crimes is easy for a wicked person to do until he is restrained by God to answer for his wickedness. But those who are untouchable now will be as easy for God to judge as it is easy for a man to squash a beetle on the sidewalk. Their future is like this: “The sinner in his day, knew no moderation of sin, the Judge now in his day, will know no mitigation of judgment; there will be a sea of wrath, without a drop of mercy” (Thomas Case, Mount Pisgah, p. 117.) 

With some effort, I can imagine Justin Trudeau as a man convinced of his sins and converted to live for God. I can imagine it; but my faith in the prospect is not great. A good argument can be made that King Nebuchadnezzar—King of ancient Babylon—was finally converted. His evil deeds were great and many. In comparison with him, Justin Trudeau is a little man in every way, even in regard to sin. God can humiliate a king; he can humble a king; he can make a king meet for the kingdom of heaven. He can save a leader of a nation today. While it is true that Canadians—sinners that we are—deserve no better leadership than what we get from Trudeau, it is also true that Trudeau deserves no better than to be allowed, by the lengthening of his tenure, to make his hell as hot as Nebuchadnezzar made his furnace. We should pray for the better leadership that we don’t deserve. And we should pray for Trudeau as if we were him because any sinner, if given power, can have that power go to his head. If we do not realize this fact, how far from the kingdom are we? 

The only way to pay off the debt that Trudeau has plunged us into is to discover and mine diamonds from another planet or an accessible meteor. By giving billions upon billions of dollars away to his friends and our enemies, year after year after year, he has managed to make the debt exceed a trillion dollars. A playboy in charge of a country is how a nation’s massive debt load doubles in just five years. When I think of how world leaders throw billions of dollars around; that is, with as much discretion as members of a wedding party toss confetti in the air—I instinctively imagine these world leaders trying, through penal suffering, to pay every penny of their debt in hell, the interest on that debt increasing by degrees and adjusting for inflation for an infinity of time to make a full payment of that debt always out of reach. The only way that we can judge a leader like Prime Minister Trudeau is to criticize him and expose his wickedness in the hope and prayer that he will step off the stage in shame as soon as possible. That he will repent, either before or after his official role as PM, has got to be our wish and prayer, even if it is impossible for him to make restitution for all that he has cost us. His wrongs cannot be righted; they can only be regretted and repented of. What thanks do we owe God, whoever we are, for his mercy in not elevating us to such heights on earth that we could be tempted to run a whole nation down for the sake of covetousness or conceit! Our sins, no matter who we are, are already numerous enough to warrant unending wrath. If we truly desire mercy to triumph over judgment in our case, which can only happen through faith in Jesus Christ, we want the same for anyone at all, even the chief politicians among us. It is not easy to pray for a minister like Trudeau; it is not easy to wish him well; it is not easy to hope anything for him but that he’ll reap the worst. One man, concerning the healing that he desired for his son, said to Jesus, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9.24.) Concerning my wish to see Prime Minister Trudeau saved, the most that I can honestly say is, “Lord, I can voice the wish that I should have in abundance. Forgive me if this voiced wish is little more than a lie. Help both my wish and my unbelief. ”     

Because hell is everlasting, and since heaven will not be permitted to be defiled no matter who makes it in, would it not be refreshing to witness piety in the place where it is least likely to be seen: in the highest office of our land? Canada’s official designation is not Democracy, Democratic Socialism, or Communism, but Dominion. Canada is supposed to be a Dominion ‘under the crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland’ (British North America Act.) But what forbids it to be under the greater Dominion of God? Have we ever had a prime minister under the dominion of God in a saving sense? I doubt that we have. It is something to pray for. It may be more likely that this will happen than it won’t happen because we can imagine it happening at least once. Stranger things than this have happened in history. Instead of being overthrown for its wickedness, as prophesied, the great city of Nineveh ‘believed God’ and was spared. If God can cause an Old Testament king to exchange his robe for sackcloth, he can cause Trudeau to dress down instead of up. And then we might have reason at least to ask this concerning Canada: “Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?” (Jonah 3.9.)


Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Divine Intervention of Biblical Proportion for President Trump



Why do I say ‘President Trump’ instead of ‘former President Trump’? I say ‘President Trump’ because he was actually elected by the American people in 2020 for a second term. The fact that the Democrats cheated him out of his second mandate means that he legitimately had it. Now he might earn a third mandate. There could be many reasons why Trump, by the grace of God, dodged that bullet on July 13th. Patriots hope that it was because God is clearing the path for Trump’s victory in 2024. At the very least, God will make it clear, I think, whether by Trump’s third mandate going forward, by his mandate being stolen from him for the second time, or by his assassination, that Trump is the people’s choice. No one believes that Trump will legitimately lose in 2024: except for the politically ignorant or the thoroughly brainwashed.  


How did Trump evade assassination on July 13th? God can cause a carefully aimed bullet to penetrate an ear instead of a brain by having the targeted head turn just in time. We know this because he took the life of a king by making an arrow shot at random to strike between the joints of his harness (1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18.) This incident is recorded twice for us to drive home the lesson. The contrasting parallel between what happened to King Ahab and President Trump (the former singled out by God for death and the latter singled out by God for life) makes it particularly wicked and risky to be wishing that Trump had been assassinated and hoping that he yet will be. Lusting for the blood of a man that God so obviously saved from assassination is to stand, not with God, but with lying spirits, false prophets, and Satan himself. God spared the life of Donald Trump by a moment of grace. Will he do the same for you? Will your next call be a close call or your last call?