CBC's DISTORTED FOCUS ON ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Whether it’s The Current, Cross-Country Check-Up, or The Sunday Edition—whether it’s this host, that host, or a substitute host, CBC Radio’s focus on Islamic terrorism is always distorted in the same way. When CBC Radio hosts look at the Islamic Crusade that’s going on, they see evil where they should see good, and good where they should see evil. 

On The Current, for example, the massacre in Paris is called a ‘tragedy,’ as if a no-fault plane crash had occurred. The concern then turns to a bomb that landed in Aleppo, Syria, wounding six and killing one. It is not stated that the casualties were innocent bystanders; therefore we may assume that they must have been terrorists. So dozens and dozens of people are mowed down in Paris by Muslims, and The Current’s concern is that a few terrorists were in the way of a bomb in Syria! 

Then when the subject of drones is delved into, they speak as if a drone that mistakenly kills a Syrian bystander, is parallel with a terrorist targeting a Parisian civilian! This is said, even though it is admitted that there is no data to support the notion that a Western drone ever killed anyone in Syria! Some guy who used to operate drones has PTSD and second thoughts, and where does he turn up? On CBC Radio, of course. Drones are the most cowardly weapon, he sniffles. Mark that: not suicide vests targeting casual citizens, but drones that aim for diabolical terrorists! And drones are ‘causally’ related to what happened in Paris, he whines. What is causally related to Muslim terrorism in Paris? What is the cause, really? The cause is not drone strikes, but hatred—hatred taken right from the Koran and unleashed by an Imam to devout, practicing Muslims. 

Listen to the Koran’s call for murder: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners” (Surah 3.151.) What is this about? It’s about terrorizing those who believe that God has ‘Partners.’ Who are these partners? These partners are Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. So the meaning is that followers of the Koran, in the names of Allah and Muhammad, will terrorize Christians because Christians believe in the trinity. 

To Muslims, Europe and North America are Christian parts of the world. They do not care about, nor do they know about, the enlightenment, deism, humanism, atheism, agnosticism, or postmodernism; they do not care for such distinctions; they do not differentiate between secular humanists and Baptist Christians. To the uninformed, ignorant, backward Muslim, whatever Western country is industrialized, that nation is Christian, that nation is the enemy, that nation must have its head chopped off. 

To be honest, you can hardly tell a Christian from a secular Joe nowadays anyway. So it’s becoming hard to blame the Muslim for treating them as one.  

CBC Radio is farther from being Christian than the meanest Muslim. But to the Muslim, CBC is part of the Christian problem that Islamists want to eradicate; to the Muslim, CBC is so Christian that it might as well be baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost after each broadcast. Do not think that Muslim terrorists will spare the progressives who defend Islam. They did not spare the progressives in Lebanon in the ‘70s and ‘80s. They did not spare the progressives in New York on 9/11. They did not spare the progressives in Madrid in 2004. They did not spare the progressives in London in 2005. They did not spare the progressives in Paris in 2015. They will not refrain from bombing, shooting, and head-chopping the CBC. Whoever happens to be in the way of a Muslim terrorist, that person is not spared. That’s Allah’s way; that’s Muhammad’s way; that’s the way of the Koran; that’s the practicing Muslims’ way.

CROSS-COUNTRY CHECK-UP ON THE MASSACRE IN PARIS

Cross-country Check-Up pretends to be a call-in show that is representative of what Canadians ‘from coast to coast to coast’ think on whatever subject it chooses to talk about each weekend. It does not represent the Canadian mindset any more than a few species of fish represent what’s in the ocean, for only certain kinds of people follow what CBC Radio is up to; moreover, while many liberal Marxist types follow CBC Radio religiously, the few social conservatives who follow it are often screened out when they call in. Still, what can we glean from Cross-Country Check-Up’s call-in show about the massacre in Paris?

The show ended up being about two things: our reactions to the slaughter in Paris, and our reactions to the prospect of taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the New Year.

The host was the visible minority woman called Piya; she’s about as pro-socialism as anyone I’ve ever heard in my whole life. You could easily tell that she was not happy when doubts were raised about the screening of these 25,000 refugees that Trudeau has promised to welcome by the New Year. Piya had two guests on to help her steer the show. Thankfully, only one of the guests expressed the willfully blind opinion that, in spite of what just happened in Paris, we have little cause to fear the refugees that are about to pour into our country. The other guest just stuck to the facts. 

About these oncoming refugees, several callers stated that they want them to come over very badly and as soon as possible; basically, these ‘rose-tinted glasses’ types want whatever Trudeau wants. The quintessential caller on the refugee question was an immigrant from Egypt. She informed the listeners that it took three years for the officials to screen her before they were satisfied that she was not a threat. Obviously, this woman understood the problem and burden of screening 25,000 people from Syria in just a few weeks. Ezra Levant says that it takes about ten months to screen a prospective citizen. That may be the norm, which means that the woman’s case from Egypt is an exception to the rule. That there are exceptions to the rule leads us to believe, does it not, that at least some of these 25,000 ought to be held back for three years as well? But even the most concerning characters will not be held back for the usual ten months! The truth is, most of the screening will have nothing to do with official documents and background checks; the screening will be reduced to verbal statements and maybe promises. That is the only way we’ll get so many refugees through the door by 2016.   

About the attacks in Paris, now, what were the reactions? Some phoned in to express revulsion at the massacre and to declare sympathy for the victims; two were eye-witnesses to the horror; another one admitted that all the bloodshed going on in the world had desensitized him; three called for war; and about as many called for status quo passivism. 

The rest of the callers, about half a dozen, wanted status quo passivism as well, even though they did not say so. You can tell by their comments. Two callers virtually justified the attacks by Isis, based on the foolish notion that Muslim terrorists lash out on account of poverty; one of these callers spoke on the authority of her service to outcast folks on the Downtown East Side in Vancouver, if you can believe it! At least one caller had to remind us that Islam is peaceful. Another did not like us calling the killers ‘Muslim terrorists.’ And another caller did not like us calling the killers ‘barbarians.’ 

What do we conclude from these gleanings? The best part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that even among listeners to socialist, pacifist CBC, opposition to the refugee plan may be heard, as well as shouts for war against Isis. The worst part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that Isis sympathizers are walking amongst us, for who else would object to mass murderers being called ‘terrorists’ or ‘barbarians’? We are so tolerant and inoffensive in Canada that Isis sympathizers feel comfortable defending the name of Isis on a public, coast to coast broadcast! A nation as sinfully tolerant as we are will get its collective head chopped off by zealous followers of Allah. It’s good that some sympathizers are out of the closet enough to speak so boldly in favor of Isis barbarians, for such people can be easily traced and profiled; the bad news is that profiling, to us, is ‘impolite.’ Better to be slaughtered than to be impolite to Isis cheerleaders—that’s the Canadian way.    

Few of us follow the Bible anymore. But most Canadians would agree that we should love our neighbors, foreigners, and even our enemies. How can we do these three things at once? Well, we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we welcome foreigners who will put our neighbors at risk. Our neighbors will indeed be at risk if this refugee plan is pushed through ‘as is.’ Some of our neighbors will be killed if Trudeau follows through on his risky campaign promise. But if we alter the refugee plan in order to protect and love our neighbors, how may we love the foreigners? We may love them by taking time to screen them properly; then the ones we let in will have a safer place to live than they could by the sham screening that is taking place. We may love them by adopting the right ones: the ones who do not follow a book that calls for jihad. We may love them by providing them safe harbor in their homeland. We may love them by killing their enemies and ours. And how may we love our enemies? We may love our enemies by dropping leaflets to them from the sky—leaflets wherein is written what they must do to avoid being overrun by a strong coalition of air force, navy, and ground troops. We may love them by dropping tracts that deconstruct the falsehoods of the Koran and that point Muslims to a better way of worship. If we end up killing our enemies, can it be said that we loved them? Yes, we can say that we loved them when we gave them a space of time to repent before we killed them. Yes, we can say that we loved them even when we killed them, because by killing them we prevent them from killing others and from suffering more anguish in hell for doing so. 

When you follow the Bible, you can love everybody and there are answers to the toughest questions. When you go by liberal philosophy, you cannot even love your loved ones in a good measure. Indeed, if you go by liberal philosophy, you end up hating your enemies by allowing them to sin more and be punished more hereafter; you end up hating your foreign neighbors by not making proper distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys among them; and, as I said, you cannot love your closest neighbors as you ought when you welcome Muslims into your country without due distinction, for obvious reasons. 

There is a good kind of discrimination: which simply means to distinguish between two things or two persons. We are foolish to the point of hazarding our lives when we refuse to discriminate between extremely dangerous Muslims and moderately dangerous Muslims and between savage, violent Islam and all other religions.

THE CBC AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Over 100 people were murdered and hundreds more were injured this November in Paris by Islamic Fundamentalists. I’ve been listening to CBC Radio’s take on the terror that Muslims have unleashed in Paris, usually via the morning program called The Current. I inform myself regularly on what the Left is thinking and saying because our country seems always to be veering to the Left, more or less, depending on what political party is governing the country from Ottawa. 

Many Parisian Muslims were interviewed by The Current about the recent events and situation in Paris. One of them communicated that Islam has nothing to do with these attacks. It’s a government problem, he said, by which he meant: the government is to blame. Another Muslim agreed with this statement, but added some information on the attacks being a government problem. He said that these attacks have something to do with Muslims in France having no opportunity to access information and cinemas. It is one thing to hope that we will believe that Muslims have no opportunity to access information, but quite another to hope that we will swallow the lie that they are not allowed access to cinemas! And as if this forbidden access ought to convince us that the attacks were therefore justified! It is a well-known fact that Muslims are not big readers. This is why they use such laughable arguments. They do not improve their intelligence by the acquisition of knowledge. The second Muslim even admitted that his brethren hang out at Macdonald’s, not libraries. European countries bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. We adopt the same posture in North America. The attacks had nothing to do with Muslims being shut out or shunned in any way. 

These comments by two Muslims are a fair representation of what Muslims communicate when asked about Islamic terrorism in Europe. The staff at The Current just accepts what the Muslims say because what they say is what the CBC wants to hear; why press for facts when you deny them as well? The Current put a quote from one of these Muslims up on its page for all to see because his line of thought is exactly the same as the CBC’s. “In France it is very, very difficult,” he said, “to be Muslim because there are so many people that have bad information about Islam.” The CBC and the Muslims contend that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Both the CBC and the Muslims have no doubt heard that the Koran commands violence, though; and they must be intelligent enough to make a simple deduction. Just google ‘calls to violence in the Koran’ or a similar phrase and the proof will cover your screen in a millisecond. Take this verse: “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find hardness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)” (Surah 9.123.) What is the deduction? It is this: Islam commands violence, and so it is not, by definition, a religion of peace. So-called moderate Muslims and liberal media like the CBC assert that Islam is not violent, only peaceful. Strangely, only orthodox Muslims and conservative Westerners admit that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the ‘infidels.’

The CBC is always careful to bolster its propaganda with guests who toe the Multicultural-Marxist line. One such guest is Michael Privot, Director of European Network Against Racism. He does admit that some radicals are not poor, but university educated. But he falls in line with the lie about terrorism being caused by discrimination and ethnic profiling. The man’s job description is to ‘focus on radicalization within Muslim communities.’ His ‘focus,’ though, seems eerily similar to that of Islamic radicals, you know, the Muslims who actually practice their violent faith. From what he says, it is easy to believe, and not wrong to suppose, that Islamic terrorism, to him, is not so bad. If austerity continues, he says pugnaciously, let casualties continue. He says it as if a continuation of terrorism would be a decent outcome. If the word ‘austerity’ is being used by him as it is commonly used in Europe nowadays, his meaning is that if more money does not flow to the Muslims, let casualties continue, which means: let massacres continue. This is the same attitude, if not hope, that a Muslim expressed a day later on the same program.   

The next guest was Ratna Omidvar, Chair of Lifeline in Syria. She urges us to trust the government concerning the screening of these refugees that are coming to Canada based on what the government has done before. If you follow politics, however, you will have learned that you should never trust the government based on what it has done before. You should always mistrust it. And do not trust a pundit when she tells you that you should receive refugees just because you have lots of room. Who has lots of room for refugees who are mostly Muslims of fighting age during an Islamic Crusade? We should have no room except for those whose religion is peaceful. Why shouldn’t the liberals use their gun control reasoning when it comes to refugees? Why not be consistent? If denying all refugees saves just one life, would it not be worth it? Canada is not assimilationist, Ratna says. Who does she speak for? She does not speak for all of us. Many of us think that those who come here should assimilate and adopt Canadian customs. Many of us think that if your religion calls for murder, you should not be granted access to our country, our people, and our generosity. Multiculturalism is not the great idea that we were told it was; it is especially bad when one culture out of the many has a book to follow that commands the other cultures to be annihilated.

The next guest was Gar Pardy, a former Canadian ambassador. He should be considered infamous for being an apologist for Omar Khadr and Maher Arar, Arabic media darlings of dubious virtue. Gar Pardy says this about the present problems with Islam: “Getting refugees to Canada, I think, is part of that larger fight of trying to do away with this scourge in the Middle-East and the problems that Europe is having as a result.” Gar is about as dubious for problem-solving as his two Muslim darlings are dubious for virtue. So inviting Muslim refugees to Canada who cannot be properly screened will help to do away with the scourge of terrorism that is going on overseas? All it will do is transfer some of the terrorism to Canada. Well, Canada’s a large country. We can absorb some terrorism, can’t we? We have treated the Sikhs well even though Sikhs were responsible for the Air India bombing in 1985, he argues. And that has worked out for us, he continues, for we have sixteen Sikhs in parliament now. Several things need to be said about this remark of his. (1) The file on this bombing is still open. (2) Having Sikhs in parliament should not be spoken of as a positive thing until these new parliamentarians prove their merit. (3) The Sikhs are not engaged in a worldwide jihad against ‘infidels.’

Both the host (Anna Maria Tremonti) and Gar Pardy put forward the same argument during the same broadcast, which leads me to believe that it is an official Leftist talking point. Reasonable people want the prime minister to never mind adopting 25,000 Syrian refugees; at the very least they want him to postpone the plan. Bringing that many refugees in by the New Year is extremely dangerous because they cannot all be screened by then. And how do you screen the refugees who have no documents? Tremonti and Pardy make the following point to those who fear Trudeau’s insane refugee plan: citizens of France and Belgium were involved in the attacks in Paris. The deduction they want us to make from this is that French or Belgian citizens are just as risky for us to receive as people from Syria. We would not refuse someone on the basis of being French or Belgian, so why should we refuse Syrians? That’s their point. They do not mention that the French and Belgian terrorists were Muslim, though. They were French and Belgian citizens, but they also were Muslims. We should refuse Muslims, no matter what country they come from or what country they are harbored in, for the terrorists of our day are Muslims, and the Muslim book is a book that calls for the mass murder of anyone who is not Muslim. Here is a prudent syllabus for screening refugees: let’s receive people who are not Muslim, and let’s focus on the most vulnerable and weak among them: babies, toddlers, kids, women, and the aged. 

When a Saskatchewan premier and a mayor of a city as liberal as Quebec warn us to oppose the present refugee plan that Trudeau is shoving through, we best pay attention and put the pressure on. I usually don’t make predictions, but this one is easy and foolproof: if we receive 25,000 Syrian refugees by 2016, we will have acts of terrorism done to us by some of these refugees by 2017. Tremonti thought it strange to see a goat’s head in that part of Paris where she was interviewing Muslims. It is not strange to see a variety of heads where Muslims congregate. Some of these cut-off-heads might soon be Canadian heads. Tremonti’s head is so thick that she would find that hard to believe even if the first heads to roll were talking heads from her own studio.

I will summarize the CBC’s interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; the Muslims who lash out do so because they are hard done by and discriminated against; if casualties continue, it is our fault for not giving Muslims more benefits and money; we should just trust the liberal government to screen everyone properly and safely; we should not expect immigrants to assimilate; Syrian-Islamic refugees are no more dangerous to make citizens out of than French or Belgian people; and receiving Muslims from Syria will go a long way to dissolving the present scourge of terrorism going on overseas. And here is the common sense interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism must have a lot to do with Islam, for the Islamic book commands the very terrorism that is presently being waged by Islamists; Muslims do not lash out because of discrimination or poverty, but because they have a mandate to kill ‘infidels’ in the book they worship by, and Muslim terrorists even testify that this is the case; we would continue to be casualties even if we gave the Muslims more money because their mandate to murder is the issue, not poverty; we should not trust the liberal government to give 25,000 Syrian Muslims a proper screening that will ensure our safety, especially since they have to do a rush job in order to meet their deadline; every immigrant should assimilate, not segregate; Muslims are more dangerous to our welfare than French people or Belgian people, unless these French or Belgian citizens happen to be Muslim. Most importantly, receiving Muslims from Syria will not contribute to solving the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalism; instead it will spread terrorism around, and it will cost Canadian lives.    

             

In the event that Trudeau will not relent, my prayer is that those who voted Trudeau in will be the ones who are victimized and traumatized the most, if not exclusively, by the Muslim murderers. It is a righteous prayer to ask God to punish those who are most guilty for the harmful policies that our administration puts into practice. It is God’s way, too, to ordain people to die by their own devices, especially when they have scorned and rejected the gospel of God that has been available to them all their lives. 

Psalm 119.119: “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.” The wicked of the earth are like dross. What is dross? The dross that Albertans will be familiar with is the stuff that tailings ponds are made of. Just as the oilman separates the impurities that cling to oil and sweeps them into a tailings pond, God separates the wicked from the righteous and brushes these wicked persons off the face of the earth and into hell. He does this on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not, because the Bible says so. God’s justice on display is one reason why Christians love the testimonies of God. That is what this verse teaches. Most Christians today are just pretend Christians, ignorant hypocrites who think that God is love and nothing else; they don’t love God’s word when God judges wicked people. When God judges wicked people, hypocritical churchgoers are quick to assert that the Bible has nothing to say about this and that God has nothing to do with it. But what about real Christians who love all of God’s word and every one of God’s attributes? They, like David, love God’s testimonies when wicked persons are taken away because the punishment validates the word of God that they trust. They have a right to love God’s word when it is vindicated. They have a duty to love God’s word when it is vindicated. It is a good thing when wicked people are swept aside like dross, no matter how sad it is. It is good for the word of God. It is good for the world. Yes, it is good for the world to see some of its wicked characters dispatched into hell, for the judgment makes at least some of the remaining sinners examine what they are about and what they believe. Being rid of persons of iniquity is especially relieving to members of the true Church. “In these evil days,” said Spurgeon when commenting on this verse over a century ago, “when God’s punishment of sinners has become the butt of proud skeptical contentions, we may regard as a mark of the true man of God that he loves the Lord none the less, but a great deal more because of his condign [appropriate] judgment of the ungodly.” 

So if the terrorists must strike, Christians may pray that some wicked persons will be treated like dross when that happens, for the event will cause the testimonies of God to be more loved than they already are by the real Christians among us. We should pray for Prime Minister Trudeau to be humbled at the possibility of being the agency by which Muslim terrorists murder citizens that he is responsible to keep safe. Since Trudeau is a Roman Catholic, he probably calls himself a Christian. We should pray that he will begin to yearn for refugees who call themselves Christian and who, unlike the Muslims, have virtually nowhere in the Middle-East to flee for refuge. We should pray for the Muslims to repent, of course; we may also pray, in the meantime, in case they don’t repent, that they will be divided amongst themselves and that they will keep themselves busy by engaging in mutually destructive warfare in their old countries far away.   

Canada needs to be punished, and it will be punished for its many sins. It must be punished for its ongoing mass murder of babies in the act of abortion and it must be punished for its continual blasphemies. In imitation of David (2 Samuel 24) when God asked him to choose what kind of judgment to receive for his act of disobedience, we should ask God to punish us by plagues instead of swords. We should pray like so: “If we must be punished, O God, give us breast cancer and prostate cancer for our sins of abortion; send a new strain of Aids for the increase of LGBT sins; give us new strains of VD for our sins of adultery and fornication; send throat cancer for all the blasphemies we spew; but whatever you do, spare us the gory sword of Muhammad’s false god, Amen.”

INVITATION TO TERRORISM IN PARIS

France woke up on November 14th, 2015 to a new state of things. The night of November 13th was their 9/11. On that night the City of Lights was obscured and eclipsed by an evil entity called Muslim Terror. France must now wake up to face what full-blown multiculturalism looks like and feels like. It must wake up to realize that importing thousands of Muslims who follow a book that calls for the death of ‘infidels’ is an invitation to violence, bloodshed, and war. France must now acquaint itself with what the Islamic mandate is and it must no longer pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. The Koran calls for war; Muslims call for war; Muslims are bringing war; war is on French soil now. How much deadly proof will be needed before France will decisively deal with the Muslimization of its country? My guess is that it will take much more than this one night of grisly terror. Every Muslim must be regarded as suspicious. Every Muslim must be profiled. For this to be effectively done, political correctness must be discarded and the Muslim population must be reduced. Muslims endorse, either ignorantly or informedly, an ideological book that commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims and to replace civilization with a caliphate. You are just as naïve as an empty-headed liberal socialite if you believe that there are no Muslim citizens of France who are cheering this Muslim reign of terror. You are naïve to your own hurt if you believe that no Muslim citizens of France have helped to pull this deed of terror off. It is time for France to export, not import. It is time for France to go to war, not be terrorized. Importing Muslims is an invitation to terrorism.  

France is not the only nation that invites terrorism. Most nations in Europe are doing it; the USA is doing it; Canada is doing it. How do we invite terrorism? We invite terrorism by our political principles. We invite terrorism by our personal behavior. In other words, we invite terrorism by our public vote; and we invite terrorism by our lifestyle.  

Canada lost 158 soldiers in the war in Afghanistan. Paris just lost almost as many civilians in one night of terror. The terrorists are, of course, Koran-loving Muslims. Read the Koran and see for yourself whether or not the Muslim murderers are obeying the Koran when they kill. Or, you may learn this the easy way by ordering a little book called ‘A Peek at the Koran’ from Amazon. I can thoughtfully endorse the book because I wrote it. 

We invite terrorism in two ways. Here is the first way that we do it. We do it by voting for politicians who are politically correct and weak in the face of arrogant, disdainful, warring Islam. These politicians are protected from danger by armed agents and they are whisked away at the first sign of danger. They don’t want their citizens to have the same privilege, however. So when you’re at a public event and the Muslims come to mow you down, the politicians are surrounded by defense and taken care of, while you are left standing there hoping that the cops will get to the Muslims before the Muslims get to you. That’s what just happened in France. The president was protected right away; the civilians, not so fast. 

We invite terrorism when we vote for politicians who wave in more and more Muslims in spite of all the mayhem that the Muslims have caused in our country already. Muslim brutes have been terrorizing France for years, for instance, like when they were burning hundreds of cars a few years ago; pretty much with impunity, the Muslims did this. We in Canada find what’s happening in France so exciting and glamorous that we have just voted in a socialist teenage-like prime minister who has pledged to invite thousands of Muslims who will no doubt bless us with the same kind of Islamic pandemonium that France is enduring. You are not allowed to bear arms in France or Canada, though, not in public, and not even on your property without legal fallout. When a government decides (no matter what stripe that government is) that you are not allowed to defend yourself—that is socialism at work. Socialism says this: don’t worry about anything; government will take care of it all; leave it up to government. Yes, leave it up to government; that is the political paradigm that just facilitated the barbaric deaths of over 120 defenseless French citizens. 

President Barack Hussein Islam-loving Obama assured the public that Isis is contained. He said this on the morning of the attacks in France, not even one whole day before Isis waged war on the streets of Paris. You have heard of a hero and an anti-hero, or of prophets true and false. Obama is an anti-prophet. Whatever he promises, you can count on getting the opposite. One of the terrorists responsible for the attacks in France has informed authorities that the carnage just inflicted upon French citizens was done in the name of Allah, courtesy of Isis. Obama needs to believe and convince that Isis is contained in order to appear like a successful peacemaker. He needs to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in order to seal his legacy with a facade of peace. We invite terrorism by voting for politicians who deny facts and reality in order to further their political dreams.  

We invite terrorism in another way. We invite it by our conduct generally. This is well illustrated by the event where the main brunt of the terror was borne in these coordinated Muslim attacks in Paris. Most of the people who were killed were killed in the Bataclan Theater. They had gone there to listen to an obscene rock band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal.’ In a decent society, a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ would be so unpopular that it would not be given a hearing. Our societies are not decent, though. We like obscenities; we like playing with death. We like dancing obscenely; we like dancing before a band called death. Every so often, God calls us on what we like. He patiently puts up with our celebration of obscenity and death, and he adds something to it. He gives us actual death at the hands of obscene people. Going out on the town to whoop it up with a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ resulted in death by metal guns for many. This is not only eerie, but synchronicities like this are ordained by God to make us notice and to reconsider our ways of life.   

I had never heard of this band before this mass murder by Muslims took place. It turns out that it is very popular. The views that their songs have accumulated on YouTube are considerable. In a song called ‘Complexity’ the band members are holding a skull in order to show us what the band is about. In a song called ‘Save a Prayer’ (originally by ‘Duran Duran’) the message goes like this: “don’t say a prayer for me now/save it till the morning after…some call it a one night stand/but we can call it paradise.” In a song called ‘I want you so hard’ we are secretly warned against the band and their message by the song’s own lyrics. “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again as if to mesmerize us into being cautious about what we’re getting into. But this phrase will only mesmerize folks in a good way if these folks are already on their guard against evil—it will only warn folks who have eyes to see and ears to hear, as the Bible says. I repeat: “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again by this band as if to mesmerize us into being cautious. Those who are in the habit of grooving to unclean songs and extolling death will be mesmerized in a bad way by those words, though, because to them, boys that are bad news are not to be left alone, but to be listened to, followed, idolized, and fawned over. Those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to discern will have been thunderstruck at the sight of the first responders climbing the ladders where the ‘Eagles’ billboard appeared as a backdrop. The image was like a bright white presentation of the darkness that the victims were engaged in when they were gunned down. In the Bible bad is bad and good is good. Those who treat good as if it were bad and bad as if it were good are given this warning: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5.20.) To sing about a one night stand, and to declare that sin to be paradise, is to call evil good. To adopt the moniker of death or to wear a t-shirt in praise of death is to put a bitter thing forward as if it were a sweet thing. What can the consequence of this sort of behavior be but a bad one? If you hold to these delusions you will reap the whirlwind. You might reap it on your death bed at an old age. You might reap it by an accident. Or you might reap it by a terrorist strike while you are in the very act of enjoying the praises of sin and death. And you might reap it while you are in the bloom of youth. The Bible says this: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6.7, 8.) 

It is noteworthy that this calculated series of terrorist strikes was aimed at places where French youth congregate on a weekend night. Who votes for socialism more than brainwashed youth? It matters who and what you vote for. What and who you vote for can have deadly repercussions. Young immoral citizens are the ones who flock to rock concerts. Young immoral citizens are the ones who vote for socialist policies. Politicians are to blame for letting Muslim invaders have their way; they have paved the multicultural road that the Muslims are now painting with blood. They are the guiltiest ones of all. French youth have to be told that it is time to inform themselves; the alternative is brainwashing by teachers, media, and politicians, and moral corruption by the culture; brainwashing and corruption have no good end. Whooping it up in a brainwashed state may be fun for some time—maybe a long time. But then come the consequences. The consequence of treating evil as if it were good is the reaping of evil. You reap what you sow. To sow evil is to plant something that will grow up to consume what you hold dear. What is dearer to you than your own life or the lives of your loved ones? True, some decent people and some Christians may have died in these attacks. True, some citizens who hate socialist policies may have died in these attacks. But what I have said here applies to most of the victims, without a doubt. Even God allows for collateral damage; he may take a Christian to heaven through socialist policies that led to terrorism, even if the Christian opposed with all of his might, both terrorism and the socialism that invited it. Conversely, he may send souls to hell through their political views and moral corruption. You have no reason to hope for a peaceful night-out if you go out with the intention to make merry about solemn matters like sin and death. And you have less chance of getting away with it if you are responsible for the political decisions that have led to Muslim murderers skulking around town with AK-47s in the name of Allah.   

This monologue might seem harsh. But study the Bible, learn your theology, and know your history, especially your biblical history, and with God’s blessing of illumination, it will begin to dawn on you that sin is what’s harsh and that death is so harsh that it should never be treated as a theme to get down and jiggy with. Before you plan to rock ‘n roll with death, beware of the possibility that God might give you exactly what you rock ‘n roll about. 

I will paraphrase what Jesus said to a crowd concerning the mass murder of some of their brethren and I will apply it to this terrorist strike in France: “Do you suppose that these French citizens were bigger sinners than other French citizens just because they suffered such horrible deaths? No, they were not bigger sinners than average; you must repent before something just as bad happens to you.” No one who dies without first repenting of his sins is prepared to die. A new way of life is needed before death brings a sentence of hell upon your soul. Voting barbarians into your country and using your weekends to participate in the glorifying of sin and death are acts that testify to how ignorant you are, how unregenerate you are, how in need of salvation you are, how perilously close you are to tripping out of this world into an everlasting world of woe. Press for the peace of your people by righteous policies; and press into the kingdom of heaven through repentance toward God and faith in Christ.

This has been a Puritanical opinion on the Muslim reign of terror that was just waged in France in the name of Allah. 

WOMEN POLITICIANS

A long time ago, like so many other uninformed, unobservant, ignorant fellows, I used to think that if only we could get more women into politics, the world would be a more peaceful place. Maybe I admired Margaret Thatcher at the time, and did not realize that she was an exception to the rule. The rule is: women don’t have the discernment and the backbone that it takes to employ the tough measures that lead to peace. Where do I get that rule from? I get it from the Bible, from passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2—passages that feminists, including women in churches, hate the most. They hate these parts of Scripture the most, not because they misunderstand them, but because those verses are so plain that even dull feminists can make them out. What they see so plainly they hate most fully. What they see most plainly is that the Bible teaches that women are weaker discerners than men and that they have weaker resolve than men. They hate this rule most fully because they are like the pre-redeemed Eve, who was balky behind God’s back and who melted like hot wax before Satan. The rule is that women are more easily led into error than men and that they have less fortitude than men have. Experience and history support the truth of this rule, as I mean to now point out.   

Observe the contradiction here. On the one hand, feminists claim that they are, by nature, no different from men. On the other hand, they claim that there is something about women that could make the world a better, safer place. 

The city I live in has a woman for a mayor. She is supposed to be an evangelical Christian, but proclaimed in favor of gay pride week. Yes, proclaiming in favor of perversity appeases the gays in the short term. But the more you give in to gay demands, the more the gays demand next time, and this is how we have gotten to the point of having to proclaim a whole week for their celebrations of perverse behavior. At some point, the demands that gays make will be so ridiculous and extensive that there will be an impasse, and peace will be at an end between them and the rest of us. If your Bible states that a certain lifestyle is an abomination, is it not time, as a moral Christian mayor, to refuse to proclaim in favor of their abominable acts? Our mayor lacked both discernment and strength when she came face to face with the demands of the LGBT alphabet.  

The country I live in got its first female prime minister in 1993. No one remembers her for anything other than her absurd statement that an election is not a good time to discuss important issues. Her tenure should, all by itself, extinguish the desire in every girl to become a politician. 

Will more women in politics pave the way to world peace or at least greater peace? How peaceful was it at the US embassy in Libya after Secretary of State Clinton refused urgent appeals to beef up military security there? It was not very peaceful for the Americans who died as a result of her negligence. What is Hillary Clinton’s answer to this? “What difference does it make?” That’s her answer.  

Sweden has been manipulating elections for decades in its aim to reach fifty percent representation by women in parliament. Since the 1980s the number has been at thirty percent and higher. In 2002 the percentage was forty-five. In 2014 the percentage was forty-four. And how is Sweden doing at this thing called peace? Presently there are over fifty no-go zones in Sweden: sectors of cities where the police have ceded control to Muslim gangs. The police themselves issued the report. Largely due to these radical Muslims, Sweden has become the rape center of Europe. Indeed, only one or two countries in the whole world have more rapes per capita than Sweden has. That is what can be accomplished by the carefree, careless implementation of multiculturalism. Well, Sweden’s female politicians contributed to this multicultural nightmare, maybe? Sweden’s deputy prime minister is a woman; its minister for finance is a woman; its minister for strategic development is a woman; its minister for infrastructure is a woman; its minister for employment is a woman; its minister for foreign affairs is a woman; its minister for international development is a woman; its minister for social security is a woman; its minister for children, the elderly, and gender equality is a woman; its minister for education is a woman; its minister for higher education is a woman; its minister for culture is a woman. Have women politicians contributed to the Muslimization of Sweden? I think so, for many of these posts are highly relevant to that problem. Moreover, the Social Democratic Party, the party presently in power, not only has many influential female ministers in it, but boasts a feminist ideology. Feminism and multicultural madness go hand in hand; multiculturalism is at its maddest when Muslim gangs are permitted to commandeer and terrorize whole swaths of European cities. By their lack of wisdom and their emotional liabilities, these women politicians have contributed, and are contributing, to the less than peaceful goings-on in Sweden at this time.  

Germany has had a woman for its chancellor since 2005. Angela Merkel is that woman. She has decided to open Germany up to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of refugees from failed states. Many of these refugees are young men who are steeped in the unbending, cruel dictates of Sharia Law. Will that make for a more peaceful Germany and a more peaceful Europe? How peaceful is Germany’s open door policy to German citizens? How peaceful is it to import thousands of Muslim men who are in their prime years of virility and who worship according to the violent codes of the unholy Koran? Is it not a sign of mental weakness to try to atone for the sins of the Nazis by being gracious to dangerous Muslims? It may be that God means to punish German citizens of today for the sins of their fathers, the Nazis. But is it wise to import Muslims by which to tempt God to actually make that happen? 

Women do no better politically than men do. If we take the Bible for our advisor and prophet, we must believe that they will do even worse, the truth of which is beginning to show. The Bible states that it’s a curse to be ruled by a woman (Isaiah 3.12.) In fact, part of the woman’s curse is that she will usually not be allowed to lead (Genesis 3.16.) At the least, when women are pushed into positions of political leadership, the results can be just as detrimental as it can be to have delinquent men for leaders. This is being demonstrated in many places on many levels, as I have just shown. 

This has been a Puritanical opinion about women politicians.

SPEECH TO ALBERTA OIL AND GAS COMPANIES

To Suncor Energy, Encana Corporation, Syncrude Canada Inc., et al.:

Oil prices are low these days; the NDP is in charge provincially now; the Liberals are set to rule across the land for years; and the border is a barrier that no oil baron is likely to cross unless blue-collars and rednecks make themselves heard politically. For this to happen, grass roots workers need to be fired up. And for this to happen, some compelling media that they will want to pay attention to, are necessary. 

For a long time I’ve wondered why social conservatives in general, and oil and gas companies in particular, are always on the defensive. We don’t have to be. There is no law that says we have to be timid and silent while our ambitions and objectives are being obstructed. The offensive maneuver has been an option all along. 

My speech is a brief one. So keep reading or listening. I have no skin in this game and I’m not asking for any personal favors. I am an Albertan and I am concerned about the way things are going. I am a conservative Christian who believes in capitalism, free speech, life, work, family, and the right to convey biblical truth without being persecuted for doing so. Since the Bible supports capitalism, free speech, life, work, family, and preaching, we have all the reason we need to promote moral, prosperous families through the industry that a capitalist ethic generates. 

You oil and gas companies have walked on egg shells long enough. You’ve been afraid to speak up and to speak out long enough. You’ve held your tongues long enough. This craven approach, if we may even call it an approach, has done you little good; it will do you great harm to continue like that. When Tim Hortons struck you on the cheek, you turned the other as if that was a good application of a Bible verse! Turning the other cheek to receive another slap is one thing, but doing so when your workers and supporters feel the sting is another. It seems to me that it was left to Rebel Media, both to come to your defense, and then to launch an offensive on your trembling behalf! 

(I do not work for Rebel Media.) I have been following Rebel Media’s YouTube channel for a few months now, and have been astonished at what that upstart effort has been able to accomplish with almost no capital. Rebel Media’s bullhorn is what, I believe, made the Alberta NDP back off the salary hike they’d planned to give themselves, for instance.

Oil and gas companies have capital. What they lack these days is bold character. Imagine what you guys could do with a little media engine of your own! (I’m not asking for a job; I’m not asking you to support Rebel Media; I’m not asking you to hire anyone at Rebel Media.) I am giving you oil and gas companies a much needed motivational speech. You must, for your own sakes and for the sakes of those who love industry more than government, begin to take an offensive stance, and to kick yourselves every time you begin to feel ashamed for doing so. Your media apathy is one reason why the NDP is in charge of this province. Smarten up, boys!

Socialism, my friends, is not good for anyone; it’s not biblical; it’s not moral; it’s not progressive; it’s not profitable; and it’s sweeping the land—even the land of Alberta where the oil and gas reserves are. You have the money; rally, then, troops! Get yourselves a conservative media team and put your offensive line in the game! Oppose Marxist tendencies; promote enterprise; get back some of your fortitude and dignity while you do it. 

If you feel inclined to take my advice, be cautious about who you select to run your media appliances. Do not be thinking along the lines of turncoats like Preston Manning and Daniele Smith, for example. Dig into the matter of selection with as much zeal and caution as you dig into the earth, for you must find people who will carry your vision forward in such a manner as to not undermine your cause behind your back. 

The oil and gas sector is big enough and influential enough to resist being bullied into hesitation, undeserved shame, and finally, into submission, which is what the socialist agenda means to effect. But where is your will? If the LGBT crowd can be brazen enough to push their sins into public for everyone to unqualifiedly accept, then you oil and gas tycoons should be forward enough to put your views out there without apology and with swagger. Think along the lines of ‘Dallas,’ the 1980s drama. The Ewing family was not prudish about wealth that was made through hard work! 

This has been a Puritanical opinion on what the Alberta oil and gas sector needs to do in the face of our present-day socialist realities. 

TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE

Today is election day in Canada. Roughly 200 babies will be aborted; that is, murdered, in Canada today. And we are encouraged to get out there and vote in order to elect our next leader. The Bible says this: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2.17.) These four commands are given out by the apostle Peter in his first epistle. My article concerns the fourth: honor the king.

The Roman Empire was the kingdom into which Peter was born. It was a dictatorial empire that was ruled by a cruel Caesar. Insofar as one is able, without denying one’s faith, one should honor his king or leader, even such a king as Caesar was. That is the force which this command carries. 

The citizen of Canada lives under a democracy and, as such, is governed by an elected official that the citizen has either said yea or nay to on election day. In our democracy, the leaders of each party urge the citizen to vote. Voting is not mandatory, however, and if it were, it would be debatable, given what our politicians stand for, whether the citizen had just cause to refuse to vote, especially if the citizen were a Christian. Regardless, because our democracy does not bind anyone to vote, it is certain that the citizen may honor his leader in spite of scorning his option to cast a ballot.  

The best way to honor a leader is to remind him of the great moral issues of our time and the fact that the leader will be made to answer to God regarding those moral issues that he campaigned on or not, ignored or not, or perhaps belittled into nothing from the highest office in the land. 

There are many great moral issues that our politicians, in the midst of a heathenish people, will not campaign on. In light of Old Testament history and the negative fallout resulting from the sins of idolatry, blasphemy, fornication, and adultery, one could make a good case for putting sins like these into a platform as things to campaign against. After all, what politician, if pressed for an answer, would claim to be an atheist?

Another great sin that put Old Testament peoples in conflict with God was murder. Rampant murder, in Old Testament terms, is called ‘polluting the land with blood.’ To pollute the land with blood is to allow murders to go on unrequited (Numbers 35.31.) Immunity to the crime of murder was most conspicuous among the Canaanites, and later the Israelites who imitated the Canaanites, in the practice of shedding the innocent blood of sons and daughters as a form of worship to idols (Psalm 106.38.) That self-made license to kill cannot but remind us of our own self-made license to abort our own sons and daughters in our worship of those two great idols: hedonism and feminism. These idols, if they could speak, would say that a person should be allowed to have sex without bearing responsibility, even if that means that the soul granted by God in the sexual act must be sent right back to God without a chance to live out his days upon the earth. 

Politicians may mouth a profession of faith in God at election time. When such a profession is made, it is usually done out of fear of what voters might think if atheism were alluded to instead. The political profession of faith, moreover, commonly comes down to nothing more than a belief in the existence of a higher power that might be anything that anyone might imagine. A profession of atheism is not a good political strategy yet. But a politician’s empty profession of faith in God is good enough to satisfy citizens who are, at best, nominal Christians or bare theists, and who are, in truth, practical atheists. (I speak generally.)  

What politicians do have faith in are people and science. So while it is irrational to expect a politician to campaign against idolatry per se, it should be rational to expect one of them to campaign against one of the effects, at least, of the idolatrous worship of hedonism and feminism, for abortion is the murder of people, and according to science, fetuses embody the features and characteristics of people no matter how close the microscopes come to actual conception. 

Stockwell Day was intimidated to back off on the abortion issue when he was campaigning at the turn of the millennium. Stephen Harper, who unlawfully succeeded Mr. Day by accepting a kangaroo-style nomination to replace him, gave up the issue of abortion altogether. Now abortion does not even come up as an issue during a campaign. 

So what choice does that potential voter have who is concerned about our land being continuously polluted with blood? What choice does he have in the face of it being certain that God will avenge the blood of innocent babes? May he vote for a politician who cares nothing about this pollution and the subsequent judgment that it must draw? One might say that a certain politician does care about the issue as much as some voters do, even though he says nothing against the evil. But what is caring worth and what does it amount to when the person who supposedly cares is silent and inactive about what he cares about? The potential voter might argue that a vote for the best of four bad politicians is the best he can do. But what message does that send except that the voter is okay with the pollution of murder and the judgment for murder that must surely come on account of it? Then the voter might argue that he could vote for the lesser of four evils and at the same time lobby against the pollution. But what message would that send? The politician who is voted for would reason that he has the vote already, and therefore he can continue on his course. By withholding his vote, the citizen has the following advantage: it is his only way of applying a censure and thereby showing all politicians that they are unworthy of his vote; and it is his only way of voting against abortion as a testimony to God. One might vote for a local politician just because that politician says he will bring the issue up whenever he can to the powers higher up. But that does not change the fact that this would be a vote for a party whose leader will not countenance the subject.  

If a person votes while the abortion issue is not on the table, that person is agreeing that it does not have to be on the table. To politicians who come to our door, we should reason like so: “if you won’t campaign for the babes, why should we vote for you? A vote for you is a vote for status quo murder on a large scale.” With respect to this campaign, we could reason like so: “I cannot vote Green; I cannot vote Liberal; I cannot vote NDP; I cannot vote Conservative; I reserve my ballot for God.” Objection: “But God is not on the ballot.” Answer: “True, God is not on the ballot, but God will be at the judgment.” If a person cannot vote with a clear conscience before God, a person should not vote. Objection: “But if you don’t vote for Harper, Mulcair or Trudeau might be voted in.” Answer: “Even if Satan himself gets voted in because of my vote being withheld for conscience sake, still, I should not vote.” The prospect of abortion being judged by God should be sufficient to restrain every moral person from voting for politicians who are content to permit the mass murder of defenseless babes to go on. I suppose that an organization called Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada must be in favor of abortion. That site puts the number of abortions in Canada for 2013 at 82, 869. Hospitals must report, while clinics do not have to, it says there. So we have at least 82, 869 abortions for a single year in Canada, and probably many more. And some people are going to tell me that I should go and vote for a politician who cares nothing for this?! I will not vote; Christians should not vote; moralists should not vote; indeed, not one single person in Canada should vote! Voting for mass murder to continue on this scale is no way to honor a leader; it is no way to honor yourself; it is no way to honor Canada; it is certainly no way to honor babies and life; and it most certainly is no way to honor God! 

If enough voters held back their votes, the tactic would begin to exert an influence. In fact, many citizens quit voting long ago on account of their politicians being immoral. Those who are not voting ought to make their reasons known, just as I am making my reason known today. 

By withholding his vote for a moral reason, the citizen says that even if the greatest of four evils is voted in on account of his personal principle and tactic of not voting, yet he is free of guilt in the matter because he acted so in the interest of standing for, and insisting on, life, and he did so because God is the author of life and the Judge of those who kill. To vote for Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, or May in 2015 is to vote for the pollution of abortion to go on because not one of these four will face that evil down. If the worst of these four is voted in, or anyone who might be second best, wickedness will be permitted to multiply and advance even more than it is doing so under Harper’s watch. That would be God’s way of allowing a rebellious nation to sink deeper into sin for its longstanding disobedience in order to receiving a more pregnant judgment in the future. The moral citizen, meanwhile, can pray that the righteous will be given strength and grace, either to escape the collateral damage, or to bear it faithfully. This nation, incidentally, is reaping the reward for its sins against the unborn already: by importing dangerous, lazy immigrants from failed states, for instance, who, it is vainly hoped, will provide revenue for an aging population, which it would have been much safer to rely on our own babes to supply.    

What the moral citizen cannot do, in my opinion, is vote for a politician who is too cowardly to campaign for the abolition and prevention of murders that are presently and daily polluting our land. You do no honor to a king or leader by facilitating, through your vote, his conscience into becoming even more hardened to the evil of abortion than it already is. You honor him best by warning him most; you warn him most by demonstrating that he is not moral enough to vote for.

LGBT YOUTH SUICIDE RATES

First, realize that the assertion that gay kids are killing themselves at four times the rate as straight kids are may be a lie put forward to garner sympathy for the gay cause and to convince us to be accepting of a lifestyle that we would rather not accept. Whenever I come across that statistic, there is never any source given to prove it, and comments about other possible contributors to each suicide are not mentioned. So the statistic might be a ruse; and when a gay kid commits suicide, the cause might be a web of concerns that the kid could not see himself overcoming or dealing with: problems like his parents divorcing, poor grades, a puppy-love meltdown, or a general sense of inferiority and unimportance due to a lack of truth in his mind concerning God in heaven and Man’s duty on earth to God. When God might not exist, when heaven might be imaginary, when a monkey might be your ancestor, when you can see no reason to believe in living more than dying, suicide begins to loom over you as an option by which to escape your unhappiness and lack of direction.     

Suppose that it’s true that LGBT youth commit suicide at four times the rate of straight kids. Whether the rate is true or not is not easy to determine. Nevertheless, why do some gay kids commit suicide? Is it because of bullying? Is it because of all the criticism they endure? The bullying they encounter, when they encounter it, is no worse than what bullied kids had to face a generation ago when gays were still in the closet. Do gay kids get bullied today more than fat kids got bullied forty years ago? Are they not celebrated more than bullied? Why do gay kids of our day commit suicide at a greater rate than fat kids of a former day? Here is the reason: because today’s gay kids have less moral sense and less stability in their lives than fat kids had decades ago.  

Are Christian kids killing themselves at a greater rate than other kids? They must not be, or we would be hearing about it, would we not? Who gets bullied and criticized more than Christian kids do? Why aren’t Christian kids killing themselves at as great a rate as gay kids? It is my belief that Christian kids are mostly kids who call themselves Christian, nothing more. I say this because most kids who profess to be Christian grow up to be no more Christian than atheists are. However, the reason they are not killing themselves as often as gay kids do, might be due to the fact that they grow up in a moral community made up of church and home. Christian homes and churches are not very morally upstanding these days, but the little morality they have might be just enough to keep their kids from overdosing on pills or jumping off bridges. The gay community, on the other hand, is a community made up of confused, angry people who push and propagandize. Gays do come together for mutual support. But their favorite ways of coming together are not moral, but immoral; that is, when they come together carnally to participate in orgies or to flaunt their lewd selves before a curious public. 

Dr. Phil says that being gay or lesbian or bisexual is not a fad. But for many, it is a fad; and for many others, it is a fad that would pass quickly away if not for authority figures who labor to fan the fad into a lifestyle. Through cultural pressure and the twisted teachings and advice that come down from brainwashed teachers and parents, what might have been a fad becomes something more; and that something more, because of the confusion and sense of guilt involved, can end in suicide. Things that inquisitive boys and girls used to do at puberty and that would pass away in a year or so are now being legitimized and cultivated through the curriculums in our schools. So what might have been a fad quickly becomes something more, and suicide can be the result. Dr. Phil is not the authority on LGBT psychology. A little sociology and history would help him to figure things out more perfectly. The word of God would help him most of all.   

Oprah Winfrey is no authority on LGBT psychology either; and the ministers whose philosophy she embraces are not theologians. Ministers who claim that being gay is a gift from God are ministers of no one but Satan. Homosexuality is not called a gift from God in Romans 1! Romans 1 does not need the word 'homosexual' to condemn homosexuals and the perversions that homosexuals do! If being alright no matter what happens is what spirituality is, as Oprah stupidly alleges, then why not practice that spirituality, and be alright with Christians who condemn homosexual behavior and who refuse to bake cakes in celebration of gay marriages? True spirituality begins with repentance from sins like homosexuality, and repentance yields acceptance from God. 

It is common among Christians who know they should stand against perverse activities and lifestyles, to lose heart; so they water down the doctrines of sin, judgment, and love. This is what, for example, pastor Tony Scott from the church on Strayer does. God denounces the sin, he says, not the sinner. Let’s test that assertion. When God denounces sin, he is obviously denouncing the person doing the sin; otherwise, he would not tell the sinner to ‘flee fornication,’ as in 1 Corinthians 6.18. If God were denouncing the sin alone, he would command the fornication to flee! If God denounces sin, not the sinner, why did he rain fire and brimstone on the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? If he denounces the sin alone, how would that even be done and what would it mean? God denounces, not just the sin, but the sinner also. This is why the person, not the sin, must repent in order to be accepted by God. Does God pour his wrath out on sin, while sparing the sinner, as this weak-spined pastor says? What do you call what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah? Was that an instance of wrath coming down on sin, or on sinners? Next, if God loves every person without distinction, as this pastor says and as so many others say, then his love for Abraham was the same as his love for Hitler, and Christians have no better claim on God’s promises than the grossest sinners do. Romans 8 probably contains the strongest statement about how secure the bind is between Christians and the love of God. What are they called in Romans 8? They are called children, heirs, joint-heirs, sheep, and conquerors. Why? Because God’s love is the same for them as it is for everyone else? No, but because God loves everyone benevolently, and his chosen saints especially. To some he gives the bounty of the earth; to others he gives both that and heaven. 

We must not be ashamed to preach and teach without swerving from what the word of God bluntly says. Those who will not inherit the kingdom of God include thieves, drunkards, and idolaters, but also, adulterers, fornicators, effeminate persons, and abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6.9, 10.) In other words, those who don’t sober up, those who won’t quit stealing, those who love their idols in the place of God, those who cheat on their spouses, those who sleep around, those who participate in homosexual behavior, will not inherit the kingdom of God and will not see heaven except from a place of torment. This is an old message; it is still the message that our kids need to hear, whether LGBT behavior is a fad for them, whether it is their chosen identity, or whether they are professing to be Christian in the face of the rampant perversities that are being foisted on their developing minds and bodies. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”—this is what must be urged, no matter how much ridicule the command draws from some obstinate sinners. To repent toward God and to trust in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for sin is the only way to heaven for any who will get there. To the Corinthian Christians that Paul warns not to continue in sin, he adds, “and such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6.11.) Some of them had been thieves and some of them had been practicing perverts. Repentance and faith leading to acceptance with God was possible for them; it is possible for any kid who will repent and believe today. The message of repentance from sin and faith in Jesus is infinitely better than what kids are being told now: that we evolved from the dirt and through primates, that God might not exist and that if he does he might be an impersonal careless force, and that it’s fine to dabble in activities that make you feel unnatural, uncomfortable, guilty, and exposed to the displeasure of God. No matter how good a sin feels, a sinner will endure pangs in his conscience and he will wonder at where the shame that he feels ultimately comes from. It comes, ultimately, from God, who created the conscience. The conscience, though, because it is negatively affected by sin, can become insensitive to sinning. The command to repent, then, is a command that should be obeyed right away, before the conscience ends up giving a green light to an even faster highway to hell than the sinner is presently on.    

This has been a Puritanical opinion on suicide rates among LGBT youth. 

AN 'EVANGELICAL' MAYOR PROCLAIMS GAY PRIDE WEEK IN A 'BIBLE-BELT'

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, especially in light of the fact that no controversy has erupted, I will be assuming, in this article, that our mayor has proclaimed in favor of gay pride week.

The word evangelical must be put into quotes when referring to our mayor and the church that she attends. Our mayor, the photogenic Tara Veer, by proclaiming gay pride week on August 14th, 2015, tacitly proclaimed against her profession of faith. Maybe she believes, like so many politicians, lawyers, and judges do, that her faith is private and should be kept out of the political sphere. But even over at the limp, lifeless, spiritless church that she attends, you may hear the pastor say that spiritual life should permeate the whole of a Christian’s walk. They all say that. Did the pastor remind her of this principle? Does God judge anyone as a dual entity? Will God divide persons on judgment day in order to judge their private lives in distinction from their public lives? You might escape controversy in this world by dividing your life up into parts. But if you do that, in the next world you will be judged for having been a coward in the face of controversy. That is exactly what the Bible teaches, and straight from Jesus Christ: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8.38.) Did the mayor receive this reminder from her pastor after she proclaimed to the city that perversity is okay? Is he a real ‘living stone’ if he did not? If he did not, is he not just as cowardly as she is?

John the Baptist reproved Herod for his sexual indiscretions (Luke 3.19) and was beheaded for his boldness. Our mayor, instead of reproving wickedness, proclaims it to go ahead, even though no one would have suffered one hair from her golden head to be plucked out if she had refused. The girl has not the heart that we were hoping she had. It’s just a guess, but maybe the mayor can’t be too quick to judge because by doing so her own indiscretions might be hauled into view.   

God will not cut you any slack on the basis that you proclaimed in favor of evil just professionally. R. L. Dabney addresses this very issue in his brilliant essay, Morality of the Legal Profession. “Let every man rest assured,” he warns, “that God’s claims over his moral creatures are absolutely inevitable. He will not be cheated of satisfaction to his outraged law by the plea that the wrong was done professionally” (Discussions, Volume 3, p. 232.)

It is a serious matter for a mayor to proclaim in favor of wickedness, especially one who claims to be a Christian, and who attends a church that the city regards as evangelical. God will hold her accountable, and not just for sinning against her own conscience. People, kids most notably, look up to a pretty young mayor, and if she proclaims in favor of gay activities, they will be swayed by her proclamation. The mayor will have to answer to God for this too. Had she refused to do the proclamation, that would have been a check on what a celebrity like Kristin Chenoweth says, who I’m sure that the kids know much about. Kristin claims to be a Christian, and according to her ‘personal faith,’ it’s important for Christians to support ‘marriage equality,’ by which she means, gay marriage. So the mayor will have to answer to God for not being a tower of strength between hypocritical celebrities and impressionable kids. But there is more. (The bit about Chenoweth comes from the Friday Forward, August 28^th, 2015.)  

From the same essay by Dabney: “There is no lesson of experience clearer than this, that the habit of advocating what is not thoroughly believed to be right, perverts the judgment and obfuscates the conscience, until they become unreliable…Now, it is a fearful thing to tamper thus with the faculties which are to regulate our moral existence, and decide our immortal state. It may not be done with impunity. Truth has her sanctities; and if she sees them dishonored, she will hide her vital beams from the eyes which delighted to see error dressed in her holy attributes, until the reprobate mind is given over to delusions, to believe lies” (pp. 235, 236.) The proof of this proposition is found, fittingly, in Romans 1, right where homosexual relations are condemned more strongly than anywhere else in all of Scripture. God turned the perverts of old over to a reprobate mind because they did not want to retain the knowledge of God (Romans 1.28.) Be careful mayor, be careful Mr. Pastor (who should have reproved her and cut her off from the church for her own good), your refusal to retain the knowledge of God leads to you being turned over to a reprobate mind: a mind cast away by God as being worthless. That’s what it means. Instead of God enlightening you, he will cast your mind into darkness so that you will believe in things that will damn your soul.

If the mayor had stood firm against doing the proclamation, most of the churches, as non-theological and fearful as they are, would have stood by her, I think. Perversity, then, might have been blocked just a bit. At the least, it would have been censured. I did not hear of any pastor or church group protesting gay pride week and the vile events connected with it. The churchgoers of this city do not realize that their unconcern, fear, and cowardice in the face of evil are nouns that witness to what state they are in spiritually, which is a state lacking sanctity and maybe salvation. They love to speak of revivals and to predict them. Revivals, for their information, are generated through Christians who are so alive to God’s truth that they confront error and evil no matter if the city gets turned upside down on account of their righteous stand against what God condemns. Our mayor is a hypocrite; our churches are dead; our pastors are half-blind men leading great swaths of ignorant citizens into ditches—ditches that wind swiftly downward toward hell.

Since I wrote this article, I have read that maybe it was the deputy-mayor that did the actual proclamation. This does not alter anything I have said because when a deputy-mayor does an official proclamation, it is done in the name of the mayor’s office and at the behest of the mayor herself. Indeed, if the mayor appointed her deputy to do the dirty work, that is even worse than if she had done it herself, for by delegating her deputy to do the proclamation, she caused another person to sin on her behalf, which is to pile sin upon sin. And it is just another species of cowardice that she will have to answer to God for.

This has been a Puritanical opinion on a so-called Christian mayor who proclaimed in favor of gay pride week in a so-called Bible-belt. 

THE CHARACTER OF THE LGBT MOVEMENT

I am going to show how to apply a passage of Scripture on this subject in just a few minutes, although I will not do so exhaustively.  

In the principal New Testament passage dealing with homosexual perverts and perversions, God describes the character of what today is known as the LGBT community. What are the folks like who make up this movement? Do we believe the word of God? Do we believe the word of God to be relevant? Then here is what these folks are like: from Romans 1.29-31: “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” This is the longest string of sins that you will find named in the Bible. It is not a coincidence that the longest divine rap sheet is leveled at the most perverse, promiscuous segment of our population. Like all people, queer persons do some things that we can admire. But notice that God does not mention any of that here. He is not looking at that; he is not considering that; he focuses on the sins; and that is what preachers ought to do. 

All of these sins apply to the LGBT crowd, no matter how they present themselves on sitcoms, talk shows, movies, reality dramas, and in your families and churches. Without doing any fresh research at all, but from the memory of what I have read and heard, I will apply some of the twenty-three negative characteristics that are mentioned in the passage I just read.

Are they filled with fornication? The average homosexual is about as promiscuous as a rooster in a henhouse. That is the only answer as to how AIDS became so widespread among gays at such a rapid rate. It is common knowledge among those who are gay or those who care to look into the matter, that it is not unusual for a homosexual to receive or service many partners during one single orgy. Documentaries that are homosexual-friendly unabashedly admit this. The rakish lifestyle that led to Freddie Mercury’s death is a way of life that the homosexual naturally gravitates to; that which is perverse in nature will veer into a risky, chaotic, dangerous course. A tornado does not touch down but to wreak disorder and destruction; a homosexual does not engage in unnatural, unholy acts without causing bedlam and injury.      

Are they filled with murder? Even while infected and knowing it, gays commonly engage in sex, often without the little protection that a condom will provide, and it is not uncommon for them to act thus without warning their serial partners that they could become infected by the wicked acts they are about to partake in. You can check out the documentaries on that; gays freely admit the truth of what I have just said. Again, careless unrestraint with a view to slaking lust is what put AIDS on cruise control during those early years.

Are they proud? They have the ‘whore’s forehead’ of Jeremiah 3.3, which they tilt back in lewd defiance during every gay pride parade. Who can look at a gay pride parade without being disgusted and shocked? Indeed, people gather in order to gawk at the gaudy display as if it were some kind of horror show. The queers go on parade in order to flaunt their indecency. What kind of attitude is that but the attitude of a proud whore?  

Are they inventors of evil things? Hospital staff members are well acquainted with their evil inventions, which they regularly have to get medically extracted. My own aunt worked on such a ward in Vancouver. So I have gotten this anecdote first-hand from a reliable source. Let’s say no more about that characteristic, and try to be ‘innocent concerning evil.’

Are they covenant-breakers? A word has been coined by a gay man to whitewash the failures among gays to be monogamous. The word for his particular species of pseudo-monogamy is ‘monogamish.’ You can’t be faithful to your favorite; maybe you can be monogamish instead of monogamous. To be a covenant-breaker in the gay world is the norm.

Next, are they implacable? The ones who chose to single out the Christian baker for the wedding cake they wanted, are implacable, which means: ‘not capable of being appeased.’ They would rather make that baker go out of business for refusing to bake a gay cake than to walk across the street to get the cake made by a libertine. In truth, had the Christian baked the cake, the homosexuals would have thrown it out because gays like to bake their own cakes. The whole thing was a ruse and a snare in order to persecute the Christian faith. We know that gays in general are just like that implacable gay couple because they do not protest the injustice going on within their own ranks.

Are they haters of God? Surf through the gay channels on youtube as I have done, and you will witness every twist and turn imaginable to make the Bible say the opposite of what it states about homosexual perversities. The word of God is squarely and clearly against LGBT culture and practice, and here is its verdict: “they which commit such things are worthy of death” (Romans 1.32.) Whatever death a homosexual undergoes, whether by AIDS, old age, or accident, it has been decreed by God to be a particularly well-deserved death on account of abominable deeds. It was God’s good pleasure to take thousands of homosexuals out of this world through their gay activities. God allowed AIDS to be introduced by whatever means, and he let gay lust take care of the rest. Romans 1.24 and 26 speak along those lines: “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves…For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections.” There is no better commentary anywhere about the nature and purpose of AIDS in the gay sectors of North America. It is the Authoritative Commentary, straight from heaven from Almighty God.

Only by the purest Man, Christ Jesus, can the most impure men and women be cleansed and then saved from what the Bible calls the second death, a place and state where unrepentant persons, in both body and soul, will be judged by God to endure an eternity of torment on account of the daring, damnable sins that they brazenly committed on earth for as little as a decade, a year, one month, one week, one day, or one illicit sexual encounter. It’s a hard truth. It’s grim. It’s awful. It may be inconceivable. But the irrevocable word of God cannot be honestly interpreted any other way.

That word of God, moreover, declares woe unto every pastor who is too cowardly to preach God’s word line upon line without blurring its obvious meaning. “Woe is unto me,” the apostle Paul said, “if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9.16.) If Paul gave himself this warning, he meant to apply the same warning to every person holding a ministerial office. It should be obvious that the gospel cannot be faithfully preached unless the reason for the gospel is explained. The Good News of the gospel makes no sense without the bad news of sin because it is sin that makes the gospel understandable and necessary. You don’t need good news unless bad news is hanging over your head. That bad news is condemnation on account of sin, and perdition for the unrepentant.  

All kinds of sinners will go to hell in the end. This is true. But pastors are so afraid of being accused of homophobia these days, that they are underemphasizing the most perverse sins in order to avoid the least offence. It is not wise, in the face of aggressive, increasing perversity, to glaze over the sins that God himself has so forcefully reprehended by word and deed. LGBT persons commit a whole alphabet of sins that cry up to God for judgment. Acceptance, tolerance, church membership—none of this will help any one of them get one step farther from sin nor one step closer to heaven. An approach that treats unsaved wicked sinners as though they were right with God is to throw a cloud on their need of grace. Dialogue might get some farther from sin; but dialogue, as genteel as it can be, will not get anyone closer to heaven, not unless it leads to an application of some means of grace, like diligent, unbiased Bible reading. Queer persons must be told the blunt, unvarnished truth, and it is okay to get preachy about it: continuing in perversity is a one-way ticket to hell. Turning from perversity is the only way to the cross, and the cross is the only way of saving faith. If a person dies believing that a perverse lifestyle is okay—if a person dies embracing what God abhors—that person dies in his sins; and whosoever dies in his sins will never be recovered from the bowels of hell. From perversity and wicked deeds to repentance and faith via the sacrifice for sinners by Jesus on the cross—that, and that alone, will be the door of admission into Paradise.

If a liar or a drunkard or a thief cannot make it to heaven without walking away from sin and turning to Jesus in faith, how much more must this be the case for those who commit the most unnatural, abominable acts known to God, man, and history?

This has been a Puritanical opinion on the character of the LGBT movement.