The Urban Cure's Open Letter To Chick-fil-A

And we, The Dunamis Word, The New Bethel COGIC & I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council do indeed say AMEN!

The Urban Cure's Open Letter To Chick-fil-A from Pastor Harvey Burnett

Read more!

A NEW Supreme Court Justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch takes the oath to become the 113th Justice of the Supreme Court https://t.co/kGVc1GAln2 https://t.co/1K5BjjKBC5

— CNN (@CNN) April 10, 2017

Read more!

Election Countdown & The Future Of American Freedom & Morality

Prov. 12:7
The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.

The 2016 Presidential election season is drawing to a close. In what has arguably been a hotly contested and probably the most contentious campaign in American history, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have outlined their positions which in many areas are in sharp contrast to one another. Of course, all of this has confused many who carry the same bible causing some to pit themselves against one another for one reason or another.

One thing is for sure, the candidates themselves both have serious issues. Hillary has email issues and a low value of confidence or trust among most non-democrats. Even among many democrats, Hillary is simply unable to connect and untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump has issues such as his characterizations of women, immigrants and his continued statements of the election being rigged which has caused many to distance themselves from him. The career politician is enraged because Trump is not a career politician and has seemed to amass a great deal of support without their assistance, support or political pandering. 

Voting "For" Or "Against"?

With all the confusion, many individuals have shrank away from the personality of the candidates. With neither personality being particularly appealing, some have taken the thought that they are not voting "for" any particular candidate, but voting "against" ideals and ideologies that are offensive and unsupportable. In other words, some are now looking to vote on the issues that concern them as opposed to voting for the "person" that they like or that appeals to their idea of being Presidential.   

Issues at odds:

Immigration & Immigration Reform...Republican Donald Trump has outlined an America that will do more than ever to secure it's boarders. He has even promised to build a wall that Mexico will "reimburse" America for. At the same time ratchet up pressure on individuals from foreign countries hostile to America and opposed to American interests. In a controversial plan, Donald has said that immigrants, in the country now illegally, could suffer deportation while others could come under greater scrutiny simply because of where they came from. Democrat Hilary Clinton has proposed a version of immigration reform which includes a "path to citizenship" which is tantamount to the Democratic ideal of amnesty, granting immediate and unquestioned citizenship to immigrants already in the country whether here legally or not. Amnesty is something that not even the Supreme Court has upheld in recent times and is not likely to pass until another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. 

Religious Freedom... Probably the most fundamental part of this election is religious freedom and what it means to be free religiously. Some of what this comes down to is who's bathroom do you believe men and women should be allowed to enter in public, and do you want to take rights away from a woman and give them to a man born a man by gender? In addition, do you believe that the State should impose state values on religious organizations and subdue their practices effectively forcing the churches to operate according to State values? 

Democrat Hillary Clinton claims to value religion and religious freedom as a deep part of the American experience. However, she has repeatedly said that she believes that religious values and beliefs are not static, but changeable to cultural values and therefore should be flexible in accommodating values that she and others in her camp believe are better suited to be called American values. recently, When speaking of Christians and Christian values as they oppose LGBT rights, she spoke of Christians (not merely Trump supporters) as "deplorable" and "irredeemable". While the media spun the commentary to infer that she was simply be speaking of "Trump supporters, the comments were actually in reference to committed Christians living out their faith, holding to the biblical mandate that same gender relationships are morally unacceptable.

Recognizing the nature of her commentary, Breitbart reported:

"So what kind of “religious liberty” does Clinton and the Obama administration believe is acceptable? As conservative giant Ken Blackwell wrote this week in an article for The Hillpicked up by the Drudge Report, during his time in Latin America, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine became a zealous advocate of “liberation theology,” which is “a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.”

So theology that calls for government-run socialized healthcare or government redistribution of wealth is okay, but theology that adheres to millennia-old Christian teachings on human life, other social issues, and religious liberty are “deplorable,” so much so that those who hold such views are “irredeemable” in the eyes of a woman who wants to become the most powerful person in the world. That was why in 2015 she said in a speech that orthodox Christian views on these issues “have to be changed.” [ARTICLE HERE]

It seems that Hillary has gone to great lengths to associate a Trump candidacy with Russia and even Vladimir Putin, while minimizing her acceptance of Marxism which is a solidly communist ideal and value. Even the Pope, in his zeal to enter the Presidential race, sold out the Catholics to the Marxist ideal and religious freedom value.

While Donald Trump, who was not in tune with religious issues and value arguments at the beginning of his campaign, adopts the Republican platform of religious freedom which not only includes religious right of worship but is also inclusive of carrying out religious values within the public square and in all that one does. Even though Donald has been victim of an impingement upon religious freedom and personal privacy, by saying that he would allow men to enter women's bathrooms in his Trump Tower, based on gender identity, rather than birth identity, his acceptance of such ideas appears to be a business decision rather a closely held view of religious freedoms. While Hillary's acceptance of limited and restricted religious freedoms, and no personal freedom (Marxism) when gender identity is a factor, is staunchly aligned with the DNC policy of accepting and promoting the LGBT agenda and even communism itself. In fact, advocates of the DNC's position consistently call traditional values discrimination and bigotry. Hillary's version of suspended religious freedom, is limited to religious worship, and not the bearing out of one values within the public square.  Hillary's views are clear, and encourage a rolling back of religious freedom, demanding change in every proposed religious freedom extending to healthcare, the workplace, employment, contraception, childbirth and other areas. Under Hillary's vision, a stand for religion is bigotry and discrimination. To teach values contrary to the state and what the state accepts as law or right, could be un-American and subject to penalty. This is called fascism and is the exact policy that Hillary embraces and has fought for for years. I strongly believe that the Hillary's version of Religious freedom is anything but American. Unfortunately, she is hardly subject to change in this area.

So the question is can ANY committed Christian vote FOR a Clinton Presidency knowing the implications of her views and how they will be played out in the executive branch of government. 

Abortion...Donald Trump has appeared to align himself with the Republican party line of anti- abortionist rhetoric, even to the point of promising a defunding Planned Parenthood which is the leading organization in the US providing abortion services or referrals for abortions to women under the guise of "women's health services". For the Black community abortion is an issue of special importance, as the Black community has disproportionately been target with abortion services, especially the Planned Parenthood organization, some say to the tune of aborting over 13 million children since 1972. In fact, abortion has become so popular that it is and has often been marketed as a contraceptive alternative especially to low income Blacks and minorities. On the contrary, Hillary has seemingly doubled-down on the funding of Planned Parenthood (as she believes that this is one of those religious views that must change) promising that a woman's right of choice overrides any right of the unborn. Her view is in step with the 1972 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that declared than an unborn child did not have 14th Amendment rights, and therefore no constitutional protections. It is really quite amazing that someone that claims to be a champion of the rights of women and those who are underserved, is in abject disregard that a fetus is a human and therefore deserving of a right to life. Nonetheless, Hillary's position is an extension of the DNC's position and President Obama, who also sought to expand abortion even late into the 3rd tri-mester of pregnancy even up until the point of partial birth, ( a procedure that Democrat President Bill Clinton endorsed as well) which allows a child to be killed as long as his/her head remains within the womb. In essence, babies have no rights, little value and at the end of the day it's all about dollars and funding. Now which position sounds more Presidential? 

The War On Terrorism...Hillary clearly believes that doing what we are doing now will defeat terrorists as long as we continue to employ and recruit Muslim regimes to secure their own countries and fight for their own freedom. The problem is that as this writing is being published, what we are doing now is not working. Look at Mosul for example...under the plan that the President outlined, ISIS was expanding in the Mid-East. What seemed to be a small, extremist group, nearly doubled in size and sophistication. The Mid-East required an adequate response. A response much better than what we had been given by the Obama administration and a State department led by Hillary. Therefore, and as a result we are currently sending more and more soldiers back to war to engage the terrorist enemy when President Obama had committed no American troops back in the military venue or theater.  Donald, on the other hand makes no bones about it...he has said that the military must be ramped up to a level that is able to unequivocally defeat ISIS and terrorists threats in a hands-down manner. In other words, the level of troops or resources to defeat ISIS, under a Trump regime, is not nor has ever been defined. If we think that we will be out of the business of war, under Trump or Clinton, that is an illusion.

Foreign Trade...One of the problems with the American economy is our weak or inept foreign trade deals. Many have called our current agreements a disaster, and if we look at them, we must be honest and question what the motivations were to get into some of these deals that restrict us, while expanding the interest of others. The empty factories and closed businesses could be the best argument that the deals were bad and devestating to the American economy. It is here that seemingly both political parties agree, but with differing opinions on how to bring about a fix. While we must remember that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to these deals, that it is the republican platform reaching out with the most radical approach to the solution...AMERICA FIRST!...While that chant may not resonate with all Democrats who worry about the world's response to such sentiment, it certainly resonates with the American public, both union and factory workers who were put out of business by agreements such as NAFTA. Trump has promised to scrap the trade agreements and impliment a system of tariffs, while Clinton, realizing the system is bad, seems to seek to renegotiate the agreements and penalize companies seeking to leave the country to take advantage of deals left open by the agreements. (Remember NAFTA was signed into law under Republican George Bush)

The Economy...One can hardly separate the economy from foreign trade but we will note that while both candidates promise that their plans will improve the economy, we are yet left with the same and similar ideas that have existed for years, both failing and succeeding to some degree. Though President Obama inherited a devastated economy, the national debt of the United States has nearly doubled since he has been in office. In response and as a fix to our ills, Hillary makes war on her own social class, (the wealthy) promising more taxes from the rich elite, to whom Donald promises tax cuts and a trickle-down effect from the elite to the rank and file, similar to Reagan's economic plan. Hillary's version of economic fairness is a throw-back of Bernie Sanders style socialism where the wealth of the wealthy is seized through complex law and requirements to fund the needs of the masses and in particularly the working poor. Teasers such as "free education" is highlighted as a benefit to the poor, with no or little regard to who is actually going to pay for it (because it is NOT free) The fundamental problem is that this whole approach assumes that the poor can never get wealth by any other means than taking it from the wealthy and that the wealthy should be penalized in some fashion for success and wealth even if it is inherited wealth. In the effort of the Democrat to speak against classism, they actually CREATE and promote classism and class dissent through their efforts and rhetoric. This is similar to what republicans did under Reagan with the implementation of stricter community policing and the so called "war on drugs" which was more tantamount to a war on classes of individuals more than the drugs themselves. 

The Supreme Court...While philosophies on the use and purpose of the Supreme Court is evidently and obviously different on both sides of this campaign, this is probably one of the most critical elements of the election. Many say that the next President may appoint up to 3 Justices over his/her term. Therefore, clear guidance and a theory and view of legal precedence is in order. Why? With the passing of Antonin Scalia, who was, by all accounts, a conservative Justice, the court is currently split evenly between alleged liberals (who supposedly favor democratic arguments) and conservatives (who supposedly favor republican ideals and values) What is certain is that Hillary believes that Supreme Court Justices should be able to legislate from the bench, creating law as opposed to merely examining the constitutionality of certain legislation and questions. Therefore, under Hillary's vision the Supreme Court there would be a law making body, responsible for telling all citizens what the law is after it has reviewed a case. Whereas under a Republican vision,  the Supreme Court is a body entrusted to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. These are two totally different  philosophical approaches to the bench and legislative law in America, and will have an effect on American jurisprudence and values for generations to come, especially due to the life-time appointments of the justices.  

Conclusion

Yes, there is enough fanfare for everyone. Emails, alleged sexual misconduct,potential jail time,  threat of suit...There is more than enough to choke a horse. However, for the next 4 years we will either be bound on a worse path of values reduction than what we have seen under an Obama Presidency or we will put the brakes on some issues in an attempt to reverse what many see as a moral decline and a reversion to ideals that will not build, but that will ultimately destroy us as a people. Certainly, neither candidate will destroy or build anything over night, but each one will have an impact that will have a long lasting effect upon the plight of our nation. 

While Trump's in your face style may be offensive to some, and others claim that he is a racist, one must ask if the moral setting that Americans find themselves in currently is worth going unchecked another 4 years.

Remember, it was a Clinton State Department that hailed proliferating the homosexual agenda all over the world when she left office. She was in part responsible not for gay rights, but for gay preference that we are witnessing across the country. It is Christians and biblical values that are being put to open shame. Christians are being told that they are bigots and that they are out of step with even being American and in some cases "patriotic" simply because they accept the values upon which our nation was founded.

It is at that juncture that personalities mean nothing...only TRUTH matters in the end. It is TRUTH that builds and TRUTH that strengthens. The LIES that we have been told this election cycle are sad. Both democratic and republican lies STINK...However, the truth is that we need a reversion to traditional moral values and this false sense of a "new morality" must be challenged. What we will find is that doing the right thing, the biblical thing, will always stand and come out on top, building a nation. 

Prov. 24:3-4 ~ 3-Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4-And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett and I approved this message...in Jesus name! Amen!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

Taking a STAND For Religious Freedom...Then There's Tyler & Magic!

Although GA Governor Nathan Deal was a no less than a coward in declining to sign the religious protection act into law known as "The Free Exercise Protection Act", we are glad to see that there are other government officials and state legislatures that have answered the call to protect religious freedoms. 

On Tuesday April 5th, 2016 Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" into law. The Law, formerly known as HB757, seeks to protect religious freedoms and stop the adverse actions of discriminating against the religious and religious freedoms when it comes to marriage and other socially acceptable norms as it pertains to religious values.

>>>Read The Protecting Freedom Of Conscience from Government Discrimination Law<<< 

The Message: 

WE REFUSE TO ALLOW THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY TO CONTINUE TO BULLY US AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS AND VALUES!

Neither our religion nor our values are FOR SALE or Compromise!!!!

All of this is in light of the fact that the business community and entertainment industry, led by homosexual advocacy, are seeking to shame all of them that wish to stand FOR religious freedoms and protection of religious rights and values. 

So I need to at least say a word about business and entertainment and more specifically Tyler Perry...

Read more!

COGIC Counsel Issues Guidance On Same Sex Marriage

{Neither Supt. Harvey Burnett nor The Dunamis Word are attorneys, do not offer legal advice nor are engaged in the practice of law. The information contained within this article and this blog in general is not and should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should seek such professionally trained and licensed individuals for such advice and information.}   

The Office Of The General Counsel (OGC) of the Church Of God In Christ issued guidance to all pastors and churches in light of the Supreme Court's recent ratification of gay marriage within the United States.

In a 5 page memorandum General Counsel, Elder Uleses C. Henderson Jr., outlines the issues that the Supreme Court's decision has placed upon member congregations of the Church Of God In Christ, and offers solutions which seem to be in line with an early style and operation of churches and church congregations within COGIC.

Membership Seems To Be The Key

Interestingly enough, the OGC guidance centers around church membership and steers both individuals and churches away from serving the general public or acting as commercially available entities. Here are a few things stated in the memorandum:

To the congregation:

"Local congregations should consider adopting a policy that not only limits weddings, but also funerals and baby dedications to members of the congregation in good standing with the faith and teachings of the Church Of God In Christ. 
“Members in good standing” should be carefully defined as members who offer evidence by their confession and conduct that they are living in accord with the faith, teachings and doctrine of the Church Of God In Christ."

To the minister:

"Consider limiting your official role in weddings to members of your local congregations in good standing with the faith and teachings of the Church Of God In Christ. This way, pastors should have some familiarity with the beliefs and/or lifestyle of the couples they are marrying. We understand that this may appear as a rather brash suggestion, however, until more clarity is provided on the issue, either by your local, state and/or federal legislators, caution should be taken in this area."

Use of the church facility:

"Church leaders should carefully consider the potential downside of entering the commercial marketplace in order to raise church funds. Thus, churches should avoid advertising their facilities for public use. Once a church begins to “look like” it is in the business of facilitating public weddings, it may become subject to non-discrimination commerce laws."

Prior to the commercialization of modern churches, these practices are exactly the practices of the church of old. Churches generally always served the needs of its members and the public generally did not seek out the church for certain celebrations and observances, especially if those observances were contrary to the church doctrines and policies.

Is The World Leading The Church?

The memorandum, which can be read and downloaded HERE and also accessed on
COGIC.org set forth some interesting strategies to safeguard the modern church and congregation from potential fallout of the homosexual lobby.

Fact is that the new law and redefinition of marriage, has been and is being used by gay advocacy groups to strip away the freedoms of non-homosexuals and subvert the church and many of its adherents and leaders are drawing lines in the sand. The Obama White House, which courted COGIC in both election campaigns, even wooing the COGIC Holy Convocation with video taped messages of "congratulations" has proven to be no friend of the church and the religious community in general. Under the Obama Presidency the proliferation of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle has hit historical highs of endorsement, running through the courts at a fever pitch, in spite of the President's supposed "honor" of the church, his "faith" and "respect" for the bible.

Because of these things, in a strange twist, the church, all churches, now feel a need to renew, refine and otherwise overhaul church bylaws and practices. In other words, the church is finding a way to distance itself from the fallout of homosexuality while simultaneously conforming to the law maintaining itself as a church.

It would seem that the church should have and could have easily set the line of demarcation long ago, but refused to define who was a part of the church and how that was to be lived out, because it was enamored with the benefits of its commercial appeal to the world and the attention that it was receiving.

It seems that the world is now helping the church define what it means to be a "member" and set forth clearly what it means to be saved within the Grand Ole Church.  

Critical Issues & A Very Big Problem Looms

There is certainly a glaring problem with all of this. As stated, the problem centers around the definition of membership and what the church and many congregations have allowed up until this point and how something, EVERYTHING, must change.

Please follow this scenario:

Hypothetically: there are people claiming to be members of the church who are homosexual and because of that, do not represent the values and lifestyle of the church. Those individuals have participated and been a part of church functions, and even assisted in proliferating the message of the church. Many individuals in the church know that these individuals are gay, and in most cases even the pastor has that knowledge as well.

Now, that same person wants to be married under the law...They "believe" that they are members of the church and are members "in good standing". They may be gay, but neither the pastor, nor the congregations has ever stopped them from performing. In fact in many cases they have been asked to represent either the church, choir or pastor.

Now, can the pastor deny him/her the opportunity to a same sex marriage? Moreover, can the church deny the use of the facility? 

It would seem that the definition of membership would be the determining factor? If membership is defined as one who participates, gives money and otherwise follows the vision of the church, the church and leader is hard pressed to deny such a one rights to marriage, and consequently the church membership is hard pressed to deny access and use of the facility.

However, if the definition of membership includes FIRST salvation, as it did in the old days, and specific teaching to the individual that they are not saved or in union with Christ or the church having adopted a homosexual lifestyle, then if the church is subject to an annual scrub of a bona-fide, printed and updated membership roll, then the person, no matter how they have participated in the church and church functions, would seem to be lawfully excluded, again, if it has been outlined that their lifestyle prohibits them from being a "member" of the church.

In other words..."YOU CAN NOT JOIN IN, YOU HAVE TO BE BORN IN."

Then,, the use of the church is another factor. Does the church simply lend itself out to individuals for dollars or the return of cash? If so, the building may be brought under subjection even if the pastor is not.

Interestingly, reverting back to COGIC founding principles of salvation, holiness, righteousness and truth, seems to clear up what a member is and what a person has rights to, and simultaneously PROTECTS the church from undue pressure and a potentially acrimonious result in dealing with both the world and church attendees. If only SAVED members can use and have access to the church, then that at least addresses the sincerely held belief section and the usage doctrines that the OGC points out or alludes to.

Conclusion:

In 140AD the heretic and gnostic, Marcion of Sinope, produced his canon or version of what he claimed were the inspired works. Marcion's bible excluded the Old Testament, because he said that the God of the OT was NOT God. He called the OT God a "demiurge".  Marcion mutilated much of the New Testament as well, stripping the words and writings of Paul from their context, throwing out certain books and in many cases presenting only certain parts of the epistles that he felt comfortable with.

The church and church leaders had to respond. They took the works that were already circulating among Christians such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the Epistles of Paul, & Peter and slowly began the process of ordering them together to form what we now know of as the Bible.

Interestingly enough, the Bible became the Bible, not because the church set out to create one, but because the world, through and by Marcion, a heretic who served a different Jesus than Paul, Peter, John, or the Gospels taught, set forth the a vision and wanted acceptance.

It would seem that the homosexual lobby, seeking and demanding acceptance, has inadvertently cause the church to revert itself back to biblical principles and definitions that would clearly, and without any obscurity, make it plain as to the relationship of those who practice homosexuality and the church.

At the same time, the pastor's hand is forced. No longer will the pastor or congregation feel safe or secure by being entertained by the "known" homosexual in the congregation without making it clear to them that their lifestyle is contrary to God's word and that they are therefore not saved, no matter how they may entertain or be entertained. To some this is cruel and unloving, but it seems that unless you are a pastor who doesn't mind performing homosexual weddings, or a church who doesn't mind hosting them, this is a distinction that must be made.

Why? Because if the homosexual is accepted by the church, not told that they are not members because of their lifestyle, they will at some point, demand marriage, which is a right of membership,  and further demand that the church both accept and facilitate their demand.

Like Marcion, the homosexual lobby has forced the church's hand. Pastor's can no longer live in silence on the issue, nor can they relegate their music departments and other functions of the church to individuals who have questionable lifestyles.

Plausible Deniability or Don't Ask Don't Tell?

No time to play DUMB now. I am of the persuasion that not asking will not be an excuse and looking the other way, won't hold up in court.

This is not about an attendee or someone coming to the church to participate in its functions. This is talking about those who will lead, and are committed to service in the church to the point where they interpret their service as a form of inclusive membership.

I wonder will the church really understand what has happened and what is really being said in this memorandum. In all I have tried to lay out a portion of it for your review and edification. This does not seem to be exclusive to COGIC although I really wonder who will take heed to establishing certain practices within the local church that will benefit the church and the community. Although this is about same-sex unions, it is far more reaching than just that. I hope we can understand that at the end of the day.

Blessed! 

Read more!

When "Gay Day" Comes Your Way ~ Results Of The Homosexual Rite Being Law Pt. 3

Freedom Of Speech, Religion & The New Gay Rights

Aside from the NCAA final Four one of the most hotly contested situations in Indiana this weekend is the states position of the intersection of freedom of speech, free exercise of religion and values, and the implementation of gay rights as defined by gay advocacy groups including Lambda Legal, GLAAD, the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).

In short, the Indiana legislature took it upon themselves to look back nearly 22 years into American history adopting their version of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which reiterates policies that both political liberals and conservatives all agreed upon at a time in American history...that No one has a right to infringe on the closely held beliefs and religious freedoms of anyone else in America, nor does anyone have the right to force another, through law or otherwise, to set aside their religious freedoms and values in order to satisfy the whims of another group or class of people without "compelling interest".

Indiana Governor Mike Pence

Before the ink was dry, the Indiana law was was under attack. Indiana Governor Mike Pence was denigrated and the legislative efforts of Indiana Lawmakers was touted by gay advocacy groups as racist, discriminatory, archaic, and insulting to the gay community. The misrepresentation of the law was so fever pitched, that major corporations threatened to boycott the NCAA basketball tournament, (which has nothing to do with the laws of the State).

Governors of other states, in efforts to look good, cancelled state sponsored trips to Indiana for bona-fide business purposes, and major news organizations, whose correspondents I believe purposely misreported the law(1) as being bigoted, placed all their efforts on examining the law with over the top skepticism, un-objective journalism, and rank criticism. The governor of Indiana, looking like a rag doll caught by the cat, was overwhelmed trying to balance his political career with his moral values. At times seeming to explain that the law really meant nothing... In all, it seems that anyone, who voiced their opinion in support of the law, was met with public shame, wrath and indignation sparked by false reporting, misrepresentations and an absurd view of closely held American rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Due to this confusion, the State of Arkansas, before they could even roll out a similar law, began to backtrack and modify its position due to fear of continued media backlash, and because Arkansas corporate giant Walmart, said that they were displeased....WHAT???

Read more!

Justice Roy Moore on "Organic Law"

In this video it seems that CNN's Chris Cumo takes an offense to the application of law as defined by Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore over the issue of Alabama's right to reject same sex marriage.

The Declaration Of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Key Wording:

The word "Unalienable means "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

This is often confused with the word "inalienable" or "inalienable rights". The word "Inalienable"  or "inalienable rights" would mean "rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Read more!

Marriage: Equality, Morality & The Supreme Court

First: I wish to thank ALL of the readers of this blog for your ongoing support, readership and encouragement. Whether you agree or disagree with my assessments and commentary, I hope that you find this blog a place to share, expand and grow your thoughts. I appreciate YOU!

"The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus..refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults...of adult couples." ~ Attny: Charles J. Cooper

This week the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the Constitutionality of California's Prop 8 which banned gay marriage in that state, and the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage within the United states as a gender specific union between a man and a woman. These are two powerful arguments with far reaching implications for all Americans and not only Californians or Hawaiians, (the venues from which these issues arose) and those individuals in states in which gay marriage is also the law. The Court's decision, estimated to be announced in June or July 2013, is set to be interpreted as the standard on the issue of gay marriage for the country, and of course, has sparked a renewed debate between those who hold views of traditional marriage and others who claim that the fight for gay marriage is a civil right's fight and specifically a fight for marriage "equality".

To be clear, the ONLY arguments that the court can consider are legal arguments. Explicitly moral arguments cannot be considered by the court even if the subject has moral implications as both of these issues obviously do. With that said, what is being legislated and promoted is a secular sense of modern moral relativism or relativistic thought regarding the issue of homosexuality in general and the acceptance of the practice or behavior as "normal".

Transcripts Available

Prop 8
DOMA

What amazed me, as I listened to the banter from the Justices and the responses from the lawyers, especially them in favor of the homosexual right to marry, was the need to make the assumption that homosexuality and homosexual marriage was publicly accepted. In fact in the DOMA argument, Attorney Ms. Kaplan,  claimed that the American opinion of homosexual acceptance had undergone a "sea-change" since 1996, when these issues began to arise in the court of public opinion. Although she was hard pressed to provide evidence of her assertions, (especially in light of the fact that over half the country has through referendum and legislative acts, rejects the homosexual definition and version of marriage) she at least argued like she really believed it.

Read more!

Gay Folk CAN'T Have A Baby...STOP PLAYIN'!!!!!

Every now and then you see something that really makes you scratch your head in utter amazement. This is one of those times...

His gayship, OC Allen, has struck once again taking the ridiculousness of his sexual perversion to completely new heights in order to advance the pretend gospel of homosexuality and normalize evil and perversion among the church community...

bishop O C Allen, the first gentleman
Rashard Burgess & Caylee LaTanya

The leaders of the VisionLESS Cathedral of Atlanta now claim to be proud new parents of "baby Burgess-Allen"... ...Yes, you read it right. Apostate bishop O.C Allen, whom we featured on this blog and youtube some time ago, and his wife/husband, (Rashard Burgess) known as the "first gentleman" (my LORD have mercy!) have seduced someone somehow into giving up their child, claims to be parents of a newborn, and  expects everyone to rejoice because of it...According to sources their confusion is as follows:

"We are proud to announce the birth of a healthy 8.1 lbs. baby, born Thursday January 10, 2013 at 8:23am. The surprise is that it's a little girl! Her name is, Caylee LaTanya Burgess-Allen. She's so precious and we love how she has already brought such meaning to our lives. We are humbled and grateful to have such loving and supportive grandparents, godparents, family, a loving Church, faith community, coworkers and beautiful friends who are committed to us.

Please pray for us as we love little Caylee and support us as we expand our family and complete the adoption process. 

“Welcome home our Princess, little Caylee” 

Your Dads.

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THAT????

Some FAKE garbage! Why do I say that?

To begin with, Georgia doesn't even allow same sex marriage or civil unions of same sex couples. So these folk are not only in homosexual sin, they are in violation of even the laws of the state. So the baby is forced to be in something that is a "pretense", at least at the moment. Her NATURAL parents gave her up and the men that she will be living with are not married according to law and claim to be her "dads". This is a blatant lie! Are they serious???? How can they possibly be???

Secondly, Georgia has no universal ruling on the adoption of children by same sex or gay couples. Since gay relationships are not the law, all that gay "parents" can do is file petition to adopt, which may be granted in certain venues or counties for non-natural parents, but has never been ruled on in the law of the state. The laws are as follows: 

• Same sex couples have the right to file a formal petition to adopt, as the law permits anyone over the age of 25 to submit an application. (GA. CODE ANN. § 19-8-3.)

• There are no express prohibitions against a same sex couple from filing jointly to adopt, however there have been no rulings on the issue.

• There are no express prohibitions against a same sex partner filing to adopt the other partner’s child

As stated, two people, who are BIOLOGICALLY MEN, didn't produce a child. This had to be planned on some level. Since they just didn't happen to pick up a child like a 2 liter soda at the store, how can they say that they experienced anything like "surprise" that the baby was or is a girl??? Did they not check with the real WOMAN who carried the baby for 9 months as to the gender of the child in the HER WOMB?

Being that the law is what it is, it may be a safe assumption that only ONE of them (Allen or Burgess) adopted or otherwise paid for the child. (I wonder will the REAL mother ever speak up, or has she been paid to forever be quiet and just go away?) If one them (Allen or Burgess) already claims to be a woman, (and I can't tell which one that is) then that one, can't be a dad even if he were single. The best he can be is a "male figure" who wants to be a female. So once again, this baby is being introduced to another lie.     

Don't even try to normalize this mess in the context of the church for it is UTTER CONFUSION!!!!! There is lie on top of lie and a precious child in the middle and the expectation is for noone to say anything and all to simply show "love"in the name of "Christianity"? Well, who loves this baby enough to point out that these grown, stank behind people are wrong???? Who loves her enough to say, this mess has to and must stop? 

My Prayer....

I pray that this little girl grows to be a mighty and strong advocate for the word of God and stands firm AGAINST the homosexual confusion that her "pretend dads" and apostate church embraces. Like all the other children coming up through that ministry because of deluded parents who continue to be deceived, I pray that her mind and spirit is protected from all further ungodliness and perversion of the flesh such as what this "minister" and church sets forth and what apostate minds such as these endorse in this day we call the "modern age" or modern era.

This is ridiculously sick from the standpoint of all the lies that it takes to make this have some kind of "appearance" of normalcy and because of the brain washing and emotional and spiritual confusion that this baby is already subject to. May the Lord have mercy upon her and the very best of blessings, and may that blessing begin by helping those closest to her denounce their sins, repent of their evil and come back to God and make a stand for righteousness.

IN JESUS NAME I pray!
Amen!!!!!!

Blessed! 

Read more!

Is It Really Discrimination Savage? Then What Of Polygamy?

You know you've won a debate when the "moderator" joins the other side to present more false arguments than the opponent.

Brown: "What about the rights of people who wants to marry two, three to four people?"

Savage: (paraphrased) I don't want to answer that question

Savage said that IF same sex marriage slipped toward relationships that he found morally offensive, that he wouldn't advocate it. Well, open the door, because when there is no resistance to this sort of immorality becoming law, then everything is fair game and there will invariably be more morally offensive relationships.

Savage: "Marriage is the legal union between two adults...it should not be incestuous, polygamous either"

Brown: "Once you make marriage based on one's "desires", by what reason do you oppose it" (other relationship arrangements)

Mr. Savage by what rule and or reason should marriage be limited to two, adults, non-incestuous or the polygamists...We're still waiting for an answer. 

We are certainly in a culture war. Very good debate in my humble opinion.

Blessed!

Link:  National Organization For Marriage

Read more!

"Queer In The 21st Century" ~ When Gay Marriage Arrives

As the argument over gay marriage has progressed, there are many individuals who simply don't know how to reconcile the issue. The devil has done an adequate job of confusing the church over the issue of moral sexual sin. Others are confused over how the church should govern secular life and affairs as it pertains to homosexual "rights". Then there are others who are, as I have stated, confused over whether gay marriage is an issue of equality or equal access. 

With all of those considerations what we can do is look and see what gay advocacy has done and continues to do to get an idea of what to expect and what to stand against as we move forward in effort to reclaim the moral base and values that has afforded us the freedoms that we experience. 

"Past Performance Is The Best Indicator Of Future Results"

You will see a phrase similar to that above in most investment prospectuses and brochures. However many of them say that past performance IS NOT an indicator of future results to safeguard the provider of the investment against the risk of misrepresentation and fraud. 

On the contrary, within the homosexual marriage arena, one can expect that what has happened in the past is an indicator of what one should expect in the future. For example, what NO ONE should be confused or caught off guard regarding is the fact that when gay marriage is the law that a public re-engineering of social morality will occur, and ALL CHILDREN, especially those within the public school system, will be the target of the re-engineering. 

Anyone that has read this blog knows about what happened to Dr. David Parker in 2004 when he tried to stop the public school from redefining sexual morality for his kindergartner. He got arrested and was told by the state (Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage) they THEY knew better how to teach his child than he did, because homosexual marriage was the law and his child had a legal obligation to simply accept gay moral standards.

Boston, A Kind Of Queer Place To Be

Read more!

COGIC Significantly Addresses Presidential Position On Gay Marriage

Recently COGIC released the following statement to detail their position on President Obama's  statements regarding gay marriage and civil unions:

Official Statement
of the
Church of God in Christ, Inc.

Regarding Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions

The President’s position regarding “same-sex marriage” has set off a “firestorm,” unlike any other debate in our civil society, perhaps, since the civil rights unrest of the mid-20^th century. The advocacy for same-sex marriage, while in conflict with our nation’s long-standing moral posture, has indeed, created opportunity for the Church to communicate our unequivocal position about God’s design and foundation for humanity, the biblical mandate for heterosexuality through the bonds of matrimony and, the centuries-old understanding of the only acceptable means of procreation, habitation, and the establishment of the family.

Read more!

Sexuality; A Moral Issue. Not An Issue Of Equality Pt. 2

As we stated in Pt. 1 of this examination of the confusion and resultant fallout over the President's decision to  pay gay advocacy, by openly standing in favor of homosexual marriage, there is much confusion over what the church should do and how the church should best respond. Ministers are allover the board on the issue (as planned) with many bailing out on biblical morality more quickly than the first titanic sank. 

Already some are simply calling for Presidential reelection at all costs minimizing the moral and social issues involved, claiming that the community is better off when moral values are lowered to facilitate and endorse homosexual marriage, while obfuscating and infusing the issue with emotives such as "love" and "acceptance"  all of which have nothing to do with the extension of homosexual marriage as a civil right. However, what NONE of the advocates say, whether in the pulpit or on congressional or state house floors, is exactly what happens to everything else when marriage is allowed to move from it's traditional root into the homosexual based root of marital acceptance. For example, do we hear any of the advocates discussing these things:

• (California)....Foster Parents must take a "Reeducation Class" embracing the gay agenda, to be allowed to house foster kids.

• (California) - Public Schools have a mandated pro-homosexual policy that sends objecting students to "appropriate counseling" without notifying their parents.

• (California) - A business was put out of business (with a $150,000 fine) for firing a male employee who wore a dress to work.

• (Colorado )- A dad was told by a judge that he can't teach his daughter anything "homophobic" [who defines what that is?]

• As stated in a teacher's lesson aid, published by the Gay & Lesbian Educators (GALE)..... "We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc" 

• (Massachusetts) As reported on The Dunamis Word, in 2004, Dr. David Parker would receive jail time for taking the school and school board to task over the book delivered to his kindergartner,  "Who's In A Family" by Robert Skutch. The book introduced the concept that two fathers and two mothers were acceptable family arrangements, regardless of the child's rearing or family moral values.  When Dr. Parker sought to opt his child out of the segment he was told that was not an option. When he further questioned and protested the issue not only was he placed in jail and fined, he was told by the courts that the school had more authority to educate his child in the law (homosexual acceptance) than he had as a parent to instill moral values regarding marriage and gender relationships. 

Dr. David Parker & Spouse

Now is anyone pointing out those things as the real issue when it comes to homosexual marriage, marital acceptance and normalization? This has nothing to do with the quality of life for those who are homosexuals. However it has everything to do with the moral values of those of us who are not homosexual. We boldly and vehemently stand against homosexual rights being a tool to re-engineer family and moral values and uprooting closely held beliefs? Traditional values would mean nothing in face of the law 

Read more!

Sexuality; A Moral Issue, Not An Issue Of Equality Pt. 1

2 Timothy 4:3 ~ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles." ~ Senator Barack Obama, "A Call To Renewal" Washington DC 6/8/2006

Since President Obama made specific statements regarding his endorsement of homosexual marriage, the church community has been divided, some even realigning what they believe and how they interpret the bible to align with the Obamaian political agenda and pluralistic world view.

Religious Confusion & The Surprise?

One of the most interesting things regarding the President’s endorsement of gay marriage is that so many preachers, such as Jamal Bryant, say that they were “surprised” at the President’s position.

“A lot of African-American leaders right now are really dazed by this because we didn't see it coming. For the last four years, the African-American clergy have really supported, covered, and prayed for President Obama, and it really came without any warning. Sunday is going to be a real great divide in Black churches and churches across America discussing the issue. African-Americans are, by and large, sexually conservative and socially more aggressive. And so, pastors on Sunday morning are going to be really walking a balancing act. How now do we juxtapose this issue up against a president that we have supported over the last four years?"  ~ Pastor Jamal Bryant  to CNN 5/10/2012

After Jamal's statement of "surprise" he then goes on to say that one particular area of disagreement was no reason to withdraw from supporting the President. I believe that  some of these folk were either asleep, or are “acting” and pretending that they didn’t know what the President stood for afar off. The fact is that a

Read more!

The Spiritual Seduction. Subdued By Gay Rights

1 Timothy 4:1 ~ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

In the ongoing battle for gay acceptance many good heterosexuals have been caught in the cross hairs and have lost their will to fight for truth or simply stumbled and gotten confused over the real issues. Once such stumble may have happened in Maryland over the issue of gay marriage.

Contrary to what we noted in our story “You Go Maryland...In God We Trust” there are other pastoral voices that endorse gay marriage in the state as well. Pastor Delman Coates of  Mount Ennon Baptist Church in the Prince George’s County town of Clinton, is one such pastor that supports the gay marriage bill of Maryland. He is also reported to have strongly stood with Governor Martin O’Malley lending his time talent and voice to the expansion of marital rights to same sex couples. This is some of what he has said:

“I think that using private, religious beliefs, and local church practices for legislation establishes a dangerous precedent in America,”…

Pastor Delman Coates 

He has said this as well:

“We have fought for inclusion, for freedom of religion, so that means if I want to be free to exercise my own religious beliefs, I have to extend that same courtesy and right to others, regardless of what I may think they do in private,”

And the last thing to examine is this:

“Gays and lesbians are part of our communities, they are part of our families, they are part of our church families,” …“I believe that the church ought to be a place where all people, regardless of their lifestyle, ought to be welcome.’

Now, I want to be the first to say that I don’t know Pastor Coates and in that spirit, I’m confident that he is a good man and an excellent servant of God. So I do not aim to impugn his character. However, he has made certain truth claims which seem to be a basis for his argument in support of homosexual marriage and I believe that his truth statements should be examined as I believe that they exemplify a departure from the faith as it pertains to these matters. 

Read more!

You GO Maryland...In God We Trust!

Now, Illinois, are YOU afraid to fight? I'm not!

In The White House:

President Obama, while implementing his version of the doctrine of plurality for America, consistently refers to "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of many one" as if it were the national motto of the United States. In reality, the Official National Motto of the United States is "In God We Trust", which was adopted in 1956. Of note, the effort by the homosexual and anti-religious and atheistic right has failed at every attempt to have our official national motto removed, repealed or replaced.

Why would anyone want it removed or changed, because it's only a motto?

Because the very notion of "God" not only acknowledges the shared American heritage and history of the reason that America was founded, but it also suggests that transcendent and objective moral values exist. If transcendent moral values exist, then there is first, a such thing as inalienable rights, (which was acknowledged by American's Founding Fathers) and those truths cannot be legislated or delivered by the whim of the state. Those values and rights transcend the state. In other words the state or government of men cannot and does not validate or dispense such personal freedoms, rights and values as they can only be given by the lawgiver of transcendent values. To state it differently, truth exists without the validation or sanction of the state or the government. 

As it pertains to marriage, the truth of the institution is self evident and perversions of it are manifest. No single individual on this earth arrived by process of a homosexual union. To the contrary every one alive today arrived by process of a genetic pairing of a male and a female. This is a transcendent truth. The foundation of American society rests upon this truth and should not, and does not, deserve to be threatened by what can only be considered a perversion of truth and at best a social diversity demanding the exaltation to transcendent truth which it does not deserve. It demands establishment within the construct of the law. Although law may establish social rights, it in no wise establishes truth or right moral values. 

In Illinois:

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn

Civil Unions are already the law in the State of Illinois adopted under Governor Pat Quinn. Recently, openly gay state Reps. Greg Harris, Deb Mell and Kelly Cassidy, introduced the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act that would provide that all state laws "applicable to marriage apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples and their children" and granting them "the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law," according to the Huffington Post Chicago by way of The Windy City Times.

As you can see, these reps are not only openly gay themselves, but they are also blind to the fact that homosexual marriage isn't about an equal access issue. It's a moral issue. It's a truth issue. This is about transcendent values, rights and personal freedoms that the state or government cannot confer or expand without effecting and attempting to remove and eliminate the same standard of values that they claim to hold so dearly. If marital rights anywhere can be expanded or denied by and by an act of legislation then marriage is not a transcendent value or right. It is simply something delivered by moral relativists acting within their time based on their subjective opinion of the way things should be. 

However, the evidence and testimony of history, empirical evidence of genetics and arguments of philosophical morality all vie in favor the existence of transcendent objective moral values and truths and  marriage between a man and a woman as an institution itself. As stated, values and truths are not and cannot be delivered by the state, but can only be delivered by God. Since that is the case, these values cannot be conferred by men. The boundaries can only be delivered by acknowledgement of what we already know to be the truth. That:

Marriage is and only should be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. 

This is a transcendent value which our generation cannot afford to compromise no matter what power hungry, immoral and greedy politicians and a legislating judiciary wish to assert. All men have a right to exist and enjoy personal freedoms. However, we can easily and readily acknowledge that all institutions are NOT open or accessible to all men simply by virtue of their existence. To assume that all men have access to all institutions simply because they exist is like setting up an endless amount of dominoes that when pushed, will only continue to cause more and more to fall. In this case, if we accept that homosexual marriage is a transcendent moral right, accessible to all men simply because they exist, then the flood gate is opened to any arrangement deemed to be essential to the existence of any man. Arrangements such as that of polygamy (which has a longer history than homosexuality), polyamory, pedophilia and a host of other deviant sexually diverse relationships would have to be acceptable institutions because men exist and demand acknowledgement of such actions. It would only be a matter of time and political meandering before these acts and others are legislated by moral relativists giving in to whims, feelings and desires as well.   

Proverbs 16:25 ~ "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Blessed!  

Read more!

In The Defense Of Marriage

American Catholics Call All To Defend Marriage And Reject Notions Of Bigotry

In a Jan 12th, 2011 release, the American Conference Of Catholic Bishops released a statement calling on all Christians and all people to defend the traditional views of marriage as being between one man and one woman as well as reject the notion commonly promoted by the homosexual extremists that those who oppose gay marriage are bigoted. Outlining the problem as being beyond the Catholic Church and its agenda, the latter part of the statement said:

"For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex "wedding" there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex "domestic partnerships" in its employee benefits policies.Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex "domestic partners" as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds. 

In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil "marriage" is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage."

In essence the statement introduces the notion that the government, by redefining marriage, as President Obama has committed and vowed to do, vicariously become agents supporting religious discrimination. In

Read more!

President Obama At The HRC With Annotations

I've recently completed installing annotations in the video of the President Barack Obama's speech to the HRC last Saturday evening Oct. 1st, 2011. As you can hear it was full of garbage, rhetoric and homo-agenda speech.  The video is in 2 parts.

Part 1


Part 2


We won't be deceived by this mess anymore. 

Read more!

Will The HRC Hire A "Non-Homosexual" To Replace Solmonese?

Hypocrisy Watch

The current President of the Human Rights campaign (HRC), Joe Solmonese,  has announced that he will not renew his contract and sill step aside when his contract expires in March 31st, 2012.

"HRC has never been stronger and after nearly seven years, this is the right moment for me to move on,”...“As I explore new professional possibilities, I plan on continuing to pour my heart and soul into improving the lives of members of our community – from battling proposed marriage amendments to creating more equitable workplaces to ensuring the President Obama is reelected for a second term.”

There are a list of candidates that are being reviewed for the position all of them either gay or lesbian.

I wonder, since "equality" is supposedly the message of the HRC will it live up to its talk? Will they hire a straight or non-gay male or female to lead them? My bet is that they WON'T! Not because a qualified, non-gay, candidate doesn't exist, but because they will only cater to homosexuals in employment and only include homosexuals in decision making and in the direction of the HRC, while claiming that heterosexuals are discriminating against them.

We all know that President Obama's claim is that the goal of his Presidency and the HRC is to end "Discrimination". He stated just as much on Oct. 1st 2011 to the HRC as you can see for yourself HERE. 

Speculation has it that Lesbian activist Cathy Woolard is primed for the post. Othes say it will go to someone else within the gay community.  All I can say is that with all this talk of "non-discrimination" and "equality" it sure seems like a good time for someone to put their money where their mouth has been. 

Below is Solmonese's last dinner with the President. I have added annotation so that you won't miss any of the overt and subtle misstatements that are made.  

Now, remember in 2009, while many of us thought that funding of our troops was the only issue, and was wondering why it was taking so long to pass a bill to fund them? Solmonese reveals that he was proud that there was a "little attachment" that he didn't think anyone would say anything about nor fight...This is gay advocacy...their way at ALL COSTS and at the expense of all else and all others!

In addition to his Million dollar mansion with his husband/wife Jed Hastings, here are a few additional facts about Joe:

• He previously was chief executive officer of EMILY's (Early Money Is Like Yeast) List. 

• He has also worked for numerous campaigns and in government positions. 

• He began his career as an aide in the office of Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. 

• He also developed the Political Opportunity Program for state and local candidates to ensure a stream of viable, electable women candidates.

Out of about 8.7 million estimated gay adults within the US, whatever Joe has done, hasn't been enough to make gays give up the cash in the amounts that gay advocacy groups would like to see it given up. Here are the current estimates of giving from gays to gay advocacy groups such as the HRC:

• Only 3.4% (280,984 persons) of the LGBT community donated greater than $35 to LGBT causes in 2009. That was roughly about 280,984 persons. 

• Only .2% (14,748 persons) of the LGBT community donated greater than $1,000 to LGBT causes in 2009. 

• This leaves 96.5% (8.4 million persons) that don't contribute to LGBT causes. 

(Source: The Williams Institute LGB Population Estimates, MAP Analysis)

The gay advocacy is politically connected and they are pressing more political buttons than ever to maneuver and manipulate both the law and the court of public opinion. It is time for the church to engage in a serious battle of cultural apologetics to place a full orbed, healthy and biblical perspective on these issues. 

2 Thess. 2:7 ~ "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way."

(NIV)

Part of our mission as believers, until the rapture, is to STAND in the way in effort to prevent lawlessness, so that souls can be saved and harvested into the kingdom. Preaching to the 4 walls and trying to convince others over the internet about some broke and perverted theological system plays into the hands of the homo-advocate. Then the rank hypocrisy of leaders such as Eddie Long and others have dealt the church a significant blow. Then others that refuse to be a part of uprooting cultural conformity are another part of the problem and not the solution. 

Will the REAL Saints, PLEASE stand up?
Blessed!      

Read more!