Memphis Crime, The National Guard, Liberalism & The 117th Annual Holy Convocation

From New Bethel COGIC Facebook post:

Recently, Presiding Bishop J Drew Sheard released a statement regarding safety and security at the upcoming 117th Holy Convocation, suggesting that to the Saints that they not be "afraid" due to the presence of the National Guard.

I posted the following regarding that statement:

"Why would anyone be nervous when the city is more safe now than it has ever been??? 

You have missing kids that have been found, folk are reporting that they can walk and shop freely without fear of being robbed or mugged and our church feels we need a "disclaimer" regarding people keeping safe???

Can't be serious that we are that obtuse."

I would like to affirm this statement. It seems that, like many political liberals, we have been sold on "looks" and "appearances" greater than results. The result of the presence of the National Guard has been positive for the citizens of of Memphis and have provided a long needed sense of safety for her residents.

The "spill-over" effect is that Memphis will be a much more safe place than ever for the Saints attending the 177th Annual Holy Convocation.

I would hope that we can rise above the negative political epithets that divide us as a nation and body of people. It is the people we serve, the Black and minority community, that have been the first recipient of a safer community. No matter who has facilitated that beneficial measure we should rejoice and encourage the Saints rather than add a level of fear based on erroneous stereotypes and political leanings.

THE EXTRA

The last 2 statements regarding major events, such as the murder of Charlie Kirk and this one regarding Memphis and the security of the Saints, have been underwhelming. 

Charlie Kirk was just as much of a Christian and follower of Jesus as anyone else who serves Christ. and it seems that the Presiding Bishop's statement stopped short of claiming that he was a Christian and represented Christian views and moral ethics. The overall statement regarding Charlie Kirk was disturbing. 

But then, to top it off with a statement disregarding the vast benefits that a new and revised community safety and community plan has afforded the citizens of Memphis, TN., and the lives that have been saved as a result, makes us question is this church truly seeking to serve ALL men, or only those who embrace liberal and Democrat politics and political leanings?  

Let's be TRUTHFUL...Our leadership is not short on political and social liberals at the highest levels and ranks. We have Bishops, some of whom, support, and at the very least are silent about abortion, homosexuality and even transgenderism. While some may be politically and socially conservative, they certainly keep it to themselves.

Then, we have yielded our spaces and Holy Desk at the Holy Convocation to them who even have views contrary to the scripture and antithetical to Christ, community and Biblical Values...YEP...I can name them...I can present what THEY themselves say and teach regarding topics of racism, social and moral ills and values, and their views fall far short for anyone representing holiness...

Then, when we exit the social and political realm, in the last year, we have allowed at least 3 (certainly more) Pastor's stories to go viral regarding their illicit affairs, pedophillic abuses and sins without saying a word or distancing ourselves from immorality...Don't believe me? See HERE, HERE and HERE and this doesn't mention why we're calling the police on National choir members  such as Sybil Finney, or explain how we plan to address the issues raised HERE...Are we arresting folk, talking about good, faithful church members, in our churches now???

All these things have resulted in us becoming a laughingstock as noted...HERE...

No, I have not written about these issues as they are adequately covered by others who are delivering RECEPTS...I don't have time, these folk are grown and I really want to focus on things that will benefit the Body of Christ instead of focus on COGIC issues and our ability to overlook problems and shout on anyway...

However, to the point, it would seem that with all that we have going on in our church at this time, that we would welcome the safety and security that many of the residents of Memphis have found with the presence of the National Guard and a heightened police presence within the City.  

TOO MUCH LIBERAL SOCIAL and even LIBERAL POLITICAL THOUGHT has come through this church. No one can say that there was not a concerted effort to keep Bishop Wooden off of the Church's General Board because of his openly conservative political and social views. I don't think an argument can be made to the contrary. 

Black liberal "association" does not guarantee any benefits for Black people or for the Black community. In fact, many of our most popular embrace the worst political and social policies contemplated. Policies that have damaged our communities and kept whole segments of our community, the communities which the church serves, the Black population in particular... DOWN for generations. 

I would hope that we could see the benefits of diversity in political and social thought within this church, rather than buying in to stereotypes and lies of the culture. We are serving a generation who is rising and waking up every day to a better and more real truth than what we have been pushing. 

Hopefully, we can join the stream of them that want true reform and restoration for our children and families, rather than just to simply look good. 

Blessed!

Read more!

The Black Culture, The Black Church & The Black Family

Every now and then, one comes across a conversation that is well worth displaying. This is such a conversation. I would like to first say however, while dealing with the Black community, I want no White, Hispanic, Arab, Chaldean or any other race or nationality reader of this blog to feel excluded or out of place. THANK YOU for your readership, prayers and if you should participate, your comments, as always, are WELCOME. But THIS needs to be said, and thank God that THE DUNAMIS WORD, has been a part of saying it since our inception on AUGUST 25, 2007 with "Get Right Church And Let's Go Home"

Please enjoy these fine Pastoral leaders and THANK YOU to the Biblical Conservative Youtube for sharing this vitally important conversation. 

Blessed!

Read more!

Has "Equity" Been Redefined By The Liberal Left, Before Our Eyes?

In every generation words evolve to take on a slightly different meaning and purpose. From biblical historical linguistic studies one can readily see this sort of evolution in word usage development. Thus the plight of the biblical expositor is to not only make sure of the "sitz-im-Leben" or the context and the historical setting, but also to shore up the correct meaning of words in the particular generation discussed and clarify the usage of terms associated with that setting. Failure to do so could result in historical synchronism, in which meanings of words specific to one generation, are either inadvertently or deliberately smuggled into another generation to create a completely different story than was originally intended.

There are words that we currently use in society that have experienced this same sort of "evolution". One such word is "equity".

What Is "EQUITY" And What Does It Mean?

As we will see below, one of the definitions of equity, is simply fairness in treatment. For example: If there is a job to be done requiring a hammer, and hammers are being distributed, one should be distributed to all those doing the job. To provide hammers to only them who appear to need a hammer is not equitable. Distributing hammers to only those who the supervisors want on site is also not equitable. This is where the train seems to come off the rails as I will explain.

Liberal Left Redefinition

For quite some time the term "equity" has seemingly been a theme song of the liberal political and social left. The word, as it is used today in political and social settings, is undergirded by theories of racial disparity and the inescapable boogeyman of "systemic racism" and in particular "white supremacy". When the liberal elite use the term "equity" in modern times, they are all but saying that America is unfair because of racism and her racist history. It is this history that has cemented outcomes in everything that is based on racism (white supremacy in particular) and the only way to be fair, is to assure the same outcomes in everything to everyone because racism has placed insurmountable obstacles, even if invisible, in front of whole groups of individuals therefore making every effort inequitable.

PROOF

I haven't seen or read too many Black people, political, religious or not, who undertake the discussion of this issue publicly and outside of politically liberal circles. But it seems that many Black leaders, especially political leaders, have taken on a determination to redefine the word and term "equity" for popularity, social acceptance and political gain.

Read more!

Candace Owens & Dr. Marc Lamont Hill

Should George Floyd be seen as a Black hero? Should we be happy with alleged peaceful protests that ends in riots and looting of stores? How do we address the social unrest and change society positively?

This is a very good discussion that seeks to bring clarity to the current movement for social justice and American racial equity.

   

Read more!

Abortion, Progress & The Real Barbaricism Of Killing The Defenseless

Read more!

"Pastor" Carl Lentz, Does He Understand Life's Sanctity?

The pastor, famous most recently for being Justin Bieber's pastor and the pastor of a host of other so called "stars" who reside in the eastern United States, recently appeared on The View and set back Christianity and the message of the sanctity of LIFE. When asked "Is abortion a sin?" by Lady Liberal herself, Joy Behar, Lentz responded by saying that a lot would depend upon the person , the situation and the history...In other words, NO!

Most Christians contend that life is only given by God and is not a mere accident or only a result of biological processes. Therefore, most Christians would contend that a baby in the womb is a living human being, has a right to live, and to kill him or her would be murder and therefor a sin. 

However, to be fair, there are a number of people, who claim to be Christians, who contend that life is only life at the "first breath" of the infant, or when the infant exits or leaves the womb apart from his or her mother. Therefore, many of them that believe such, contend that even partial birth abortion, the type of abortion where a fetus has not taken its first breath and has a head still in the womb prior to being murdered, is NOT essentially a human being, and therefore cannot be "murdered" by the process of abortion. 

On the other hand, simply looking at science dispels the myth that fetuses are not human. Even modern law has recognized that when a pregnant women is murdered and the fetus dies, that there are 2 murders that take place. In addition, for one to not contend that a fetus is a human being, while simultaneously claiming to be faithful to the word of God, is and oxymoron, a most spiritually blind proposition which denies that God has created human beings for himself and for his own purposes. Such confusion reduces man and birth to mere biological function with no greater purpose. 

All I can say is that liberal, weak, spaghetti backed Christianity and pastoral leaders that love to appeal to the world are nothing less than SELL-OUTS, and are NOT helping the world or the church with the false brand of Christianity they are presenting. I can't be sure, but it sure sounds like the case here. SMH!!!

Read more!

Pastor Burnett On Twitter

Please join me on Twitter. Of course, the message I deliver is not popular with the social elite of the day, nor is it complimentary of the moral relativism that many of our communities have been enamored with, but SO WHAT???  We have a voice, and know what is right, and must say so. 

Here is one of my most recent tweets:

"Sorry, it's the biggest hypocrisy of all to berate Rachel Dolezal for her claim to Blackness while endorsing a man's claim to be a woman!"

Blessed!

Read more!

Omarosa Bakes Behar & Her Supporters Pointing The View In The Right Direction

Loved this and loved Omarosa's responses and no fear to go into the cauldron of what I consider to be the most intolerant and least insightful critic in the world at times.

The praise for the Women's March, which is a topic that I will undertake shortly, was overwhelming here. The problem is that neither Behar or the liberal left critics see a problem with excluding women who disagree with their liberalism. See, conservative values were not praised. Pro-life women were restricted from the march. But in The View's world, that is normal...

Part 2 Blessed!

Read more!

Liberals Still Asking, "What Happened"? Pastor Marlin Reid Answers.

After listening to the pundits give their spin on why Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost the 2016 Presidential election I was enamored with a recent Facebook assessment by my friend and fellow pastor from Detroit, Pastor Marlin Reid of New Wine Glory ~ The River Church.

Unlike pundits who contend that the election was a "whitelash" which is the DUMBEST assessment of a serious issue I've ever heard, or that it was the POOR AND UNEDUCATED WHITE-TRASH and racists (which are additional dumbfounded assessments) that put Trump in, Pastor Reid breaks it down giving a TRUE assessment of the real issues that voters across our nation felt as they visited the polls during the recent Presidential election.

In short, the Liberal strategy to rely upon the courts and a sidestep of the will of the people and eject objective moral values, in particularly Christian values upon which our society has long had a history and foundation, failed. At this point, I'll simply allow Pastor Reid to speak because I believe he says it much better and more concisely than I can:

"Everybody is asking What happened! How did this happen!

Simple, the LBGTQ & the Liberal Left overplayed their hand.

They shouted and danced when the Federal Gov. overruled The will of the people and ratified same sex marriage 

Then they praised Bruce Jenner and the mutilation of his body to look like a woman - they even made him woman of the year ! (what a insult to women everywhere)

Then they pushed genderless Bathrooms and it failed to pass.

They tried to pressure a whole state to bend by threatening to pull the All star game and millions of dollars from them.

They constantly push images of weak men and powerful women beating up men & dominating them in all almost every TV show.

They pushed homosexuals in all media as the best & brightest.

They pushed images in the media of Christians as stupid, hypocrites or delusional fools & the church as being a joke.

They tried to brainwash America into the nonsense of political correctness and turn the country Into a bunch of nice talking 2 faced liars.

And America set Back and let them entertain & talk all their liberal junk on every venue of media -music,movies, talk shows (like the View) etc..

Their supposedly "smarter than us" entertainers tried to tell us how to think and what to believe.

They told us we were not a Christian nation any more.. never was

They put everybody else ahead of Americans

They thought America bought into it all!! hook,line & sinker

They thought America was finally ready to be totally sodomized and shifted to their new world order consciousness.

But when it came time to vote!!

The American people said enough .. ! no more !

We Will not give you the power to control the Supreme Court or seats in congress to rewrite the moral compass of this nation.

It's quite simple ..they are totally out of touch with the heart of the common person in this country and they overplayed their hand.

That's all" ~ Pastor Marlin Reid, New Wine Glory ~ The River Southfield, MI 

Thank you Pastor Reid and to that I say a hearty AMEN!!!!

Blessed. 

Read more!

Open Boarders, Open Society & The Desire To Control The World

UPDATE 11/13/2016
NEW: See the Soros 60 Minutes interview referenced in this article at the end of the article. 

As the Presidential election draws near, I can only hope that our nation, and its voters as a whole, makes a decision to uphold traditional values, which include the restoration of traditional family values and rejects continued interference in moral propositions from activist courts. Yes, there are many issues to vote for even if one is not excited about the candidates for whatever reason.

There are issues and things being said that the average voter has no clue about. It is my intent to reveal a slight bit of the rhetoric being said this election and why certain individuals are so intent on placing their candidate at the top of the world's greatest and most powerful free nation.

It all begins in Hungry in about 1930.

Tavidar and Elizabeth Schwartz gave birth to a son named George. Tavidar had served in a POW camp in Russia during WWI giving himself to the aspects of a cult language and belief system called "Esperato". The reason I say "cult" language and system, is because Esperato was and is what is called a universal language that all men on Earth are encouraged to learn and use. ie: it is natural man's reversal of Babel and the language confusion that God brought about on Earth. It is the foundation of the "one world" vision of globalism encouraged by secularists, materialists, and metaphysical naturalists. The idea is that if we speak the same language...you know the rest...

In about 1944, when George was just 14 years old, Jewish persecution was at an all time high. During the invasion, Jews were marked for death. At that time Tavidar, who was a lawyer, saw to it that the family name was changed to "Soros" which in Hungarian meant "successor" {Interestingly enough, Soros in Greek, the biblical language, means "Coffin" and is used 1 time within scripture.}

Simultaneously with the name change, was the conspiracy to not be identified with or as a Jew. It seems that Elizabeth hated her Jewishness anyway and Tavidar did not see it as profitable either. Besides, all the Jews around the family were dying or being sent to death camps. Therefore, George learned at a young age to conform, relate, pretend and collaborate, even against his own lineage. As the Jews were sent to death camps and as their property and wealth was confiscated, it was George Soros, a 14 year old boy that assisted the death squads and took the material spoils for himself as well.  In 1998 Soros stated the same sentiments to all Americans on the news broadcast magazine show "60 Minutes" . He said that although the threat of death was very real, the 2 years (44-46) were the "happiest times in his life". Here is a statement from him on the show:

"I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that is I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would – would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.” ~ George Soros, 1998 "60 Minutes" CBS. 

Then again, on Sept. 29,2006 George told the United States Congress that he had "no sense of guilt" in helping the German's take the property of the Jews, just in case they didn't believe him previously. Remember, he was riding with a man making decisions to have people committed to death camps that he called his godfather, covering his identity as a Jew. He changed his name and went by the name of Sandor Kiss during this time. So Soros became an actor, playing a role, watching his fellow countrymen taken away from their homes, families split, assets taken, consigned to death and he called it the "greatest time" of his life.

From there, he escaped Hungry, attended a Esperanto conference in Bern, supposedly met agnostic philosopher of science, Karl Popper, the father of the requirement of "falsification" for scientific method, and adopted an "Open Society" world view that he has developed over time and that he is attempting to promote all over the world. The term "Open Society" means a society in which "freedom is maximized so that individual citizens can live as they desire to live"...

Go HERE to find out what Hillary Clinton's supposed vision is regarding this...It is nothing more than a mini-Soros version

Interestingly enough, while promoting the "open society" concept he operates in secret bankrupting countries while making profits. He promotes that the "rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and even pay more than they owe if necessary or the benefit of all. However, he does not do that. His office is located in New York, however his business and business assets are located offshore, where taxes are not due and the United States has no right of review of his books or records. In fact, his client list and investors and investment holdings are not subject to SEC regulation. His political theory and "Open Society" concept which is different and more encompassing than Popper's, is only a rouse to get the common man interested in his rhetoric, to spark appeal so that he can then mesmerize them with his words.

"I am basically in business to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do" ~ George Soros, 1998 "60 Minutes" CBS

He is wealthy. He is said to be worth over $24 Billion. (Forbes 23rd in the world) In 1992, he bankrupted the Bank Of England, and made $1 Billion in the process. He has bankrupted the currencies of poor nations as well, including Malaysia who's Prime Minister openly said that Soros is one of those "Rich people from rich countries, who have no compunction about impoverishing the poor in order to enrich themselves"

As stated, his aim and the way he makes money, is by the control and collapse of financial systems and banks worldwide. The Rothschilds have to fear him and what he has learned to do to them and their money cartels all around the world.

He is a philanthropist to this degree...he funds causes that he likes, causes from which he can benefit, and causes which he can control, by setting up and establishing "foundations", appointing his own employees and using other methods for the purpose of promoting his agenda. 

Although he is a Jew by birth, he denies his heritage as a Jew, and he is anti-Israel. He claims to be in favor of Middle East peace, but reading through the tea leaves reveals that the peace he espouses, funds anti-Israeli groups and claims that Israel is the problem in the Middle East and should not have a state or at the very least share a state with the Palestinians, who have NEVER had a state in the Middle East or anyplace else. One such group that carries out his anti-Zionist agenda is a group called Telos, which is known to provide disinformation even blaming Israel for the Middle East problem. This group is funded by Soros. Read HERE

He is politically engaged both around the world and in the United States. He has funded Occupy WallStreet, Black Lives Matter, and a host of other organizations for the cause of changing the landscape and political agenda of America. HERE 

The Soros social agenda in the world and for America:

*Legalize drugs

*Promote euthanasia

*Promote abortion and abortion rights

*Promote atheism

*Promote sex education (population control)

*Promote gun control

*Promotes the LGBT agenda

*Promote Unfettered immigration (path to citizenship not necessary)

*Make religion simply another choice like all others in society

Why homosexuality? Soros believes that the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people. He believes that we only need about 1 billion people in the world. The way to decrease population is to increase homosexuality and promote assisted killing for people with dreadful diseases.

Recently Wickileaks, released  how Soros, not President Obama nor the United States White House, directed Hillary Clinton, then Secretary Of State, on what to do in Albania. This is what he told the Secretary of State to do:

“two things need to be done urgently” “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” After which Soros gives Clinton three names to choose from.

Who is in control if international affairs of the United States? The united States or George Soros? Could this be why Hillary deleted emails?

Finally, George Soros is the main contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign for President, wouldn't you know it...also, who would have thought, the Clinton Foundation...Remember he gave more than $27 Million to defeat George Bush, and almost went into seclusion when the Supreme Court's decisions went against the democratic party efforts. He is said to have given roughly $10 Million to Hillary's super PAC, Priorities USA which directly contributes to her campaign, $2 Million to American Bridge 21st century which is a super PAC that only focuses on negative or anti-trump efforts, $5 Million to Immigrant Voters Win, that is dedicated to getting out liberal and democratic Hispanic voters to the polls, another $5 Million to PCS dedicated to stopping Republican efforts for voter integrity, and over $700,000 to various PACs to promote democratic ideals, goals and agendas.

Why Should you be concerned?

The vision of the Democratic Party IS the vision of the world of George Soros. His vision does not simply happen to align with the democratic party views. His vision inspires the Democratic Party's views. His views are responsible for the shape and political landscape and agenda for the Democratic Party. God has no place of significance in the Soros world and is only a "private" act in the Democratic Party world. Soros  controlled the Clinton State Department and significantly influenced if not led the Obama Presidency. George Soros is doing in America, what he has done elsewhere, creating a country in his own image:

“I fancied myself as some kind of god …” “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.“

Later he said again, just in case you didn't understand:

“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.“

Soros, is, in his mind, a god. he is a controller of the way things are, and if he cannot control things he will do what he can, by way of using his influence and money to make things the way he wants them to be.

The ONLY thing that prevents Soros agenda from becoming the right now reality that he wants it to be is God himself and the prayers of HIS people. It is the TRUE AND LIVING GOD that is using George Soros to do his bidding. George will die like any other man when God is finished using his evil intent for the glory of God in this world. 

Clinton or Trump, we BETTER pray!

The influence of Soros is so much of a factor that Hollywood elite have arisen to address the issues. Here is a video from actor Jon Voight regarding the issue.

Blessed!

On a free and tolerant society.
George Soros was supposedly so influenced by Karl Popper that he adopted his open society constructs from him. Soros has taken Popper's concepts further than Popper did by saying that his "open society" is a source of truth, which is something that Popper did not contend. Here popper identifies the limits of his open society construct, introducing the "paradox of freedom" concept. 

Atheist Philosopher Karl Popper

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”  ~ Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

SOROS 60 MINUTES INTERVIEW 

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!

Star Parker: A Lawless Society

In her recent article in the Catalyst Magazine, a publication of the CURE (Center For Urban Renewal and Education) conservative activist Star Parker outlines the correlation between FBI Director Jim Comey’s rationalization regarding the violations of Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in her apparent email scandal and the seeming lawlessness and violent civil unrest that has sometimes occurred at recent Black Lives Matter events and rallies around the country. In the article Star says:

“What we are witnessing is the chaotic result of a society that is becoming each day more lawless. The basis of civilized, decent and just society is law. But law, if it’s going to be respected, must be rooted in core values and eternal truths. In the words of our second President, John Adams, we need a “government of laws, not of men”. 

Star goes on to say:

“In our zeal to purge our nation of Judeo-Christian values, driven by the false notion that religion hampers rather than enhances our freedom, we bear the consequences of this effort. We wind up with a government of men, not laws.”

Star also affirms that when law is not applied or taken seriously at the highest levels of society that those “struggling in life” will conclude that the country itself is unfair, and that there is no legislation that will calm people who do not feel respected or taken seriously. 

The Anarchy Of Black Lives Matter

Although I am certainly no fan of the Black Lives Matter movement, as I have expressed HERE, it should be noted that the unfairness of practices and policies within society is exactly what the Black Lives Matter(BLM) movement is attempting to address under its social justice agenda. However, the efforts have been perceived as unfriendly to public safety by many who have witnessed the outgrowth of anger and the veracity in which arguments are raised It is exactly the correlation between lawlessness, liberalism, injustice, and the attempt to correct injustice without embracing theologically inspired moral value paradigms that has allowed the movement to proliferate and find a place in the hearts and minds of a new generation of activists and those who see themselves as having been treated unjustly and unfairly by the system that currently exists. 

As stated, the methods embraced by the BLM movement has led to a host of social upheaval efforts

as outlined in their literature and multiple interviews. Founder of the movement and lesbian activist, Alicia Garza, states that in her opinion, the police, as we know of the institution within our society, should be done away with or disbanded. Ms. Garza, a bona-fide socialist and near communist in her views and application of what a society should embrace and operate, appears to believe that most of the primary institutions within society are driven not only by race, but by male dominance and heterosexism, which, from studying her commentary, have all combined to hurt the Black community and take advantage of all of them that are struggling in life. 

Ms. Garza’s sentiments were born out of her observations of activities and police interactions in the San Francisco Bay area, in which she describes that the police and policing activities were and are basically a tool for gentrification in which unfair and obtuse laws are unfairly applied to target Black people in particular, oppressing them so much and ultimately forcing them to clear out of entire areas and neighborhoods so that the White establishment can do a “land grab” and ultimately community redevelopment without having to pay the people from whom they initially took the land.

Ms. Garza's Interview by The Nation Blog and her comments regarding abolishing the police acan be found HERE

It seems that examination of practices such as these, which includes the systematic murder of persons of color by police activities, and other issues all around the country appear to be a combination of primary reasons that the BLM movement gained so much appeal among many Blacks and others who have witnessed similar in their neighborhoods and communities, and who have felt taken advantage of and belittled by what others, primarily the White establishment, believe are societal norms.

Moral Values, Society & The Law Of God 

If what Star has set forth is true, that we are in turmoil as a country because of the lack of respect for law even at the highest ranks of society, and also from the disdain of a transcendent source of objective moral values and law, and I believe that she is correct, then there is no natural solution to our plight as a nation and as a people. If she is correct, then we can expect to see more and more unjust laws continue to come forth based on what men think is true as opposed to what God says is true. 

Under the system of subjective morality, standards are only as good as the group that is in power says that they are. Everything, right and wrong, moral good and bad, is relegated to what men “think” is true and what men ‘feel” is right or good. 

If men can contour truth to be whatever they want it to be, or make truth include whatever constructs that they think are correct, then we are relegated to a disparity that will always be based on the strength and moral right of men and mankind. In other words there will always be injustice. The interpretation and application of law will always be applied as it facilitates politics and classism. Ultimately, someone, left out of those damaged by the process will invariably feel that they must fight, by whatever means, to make their cause heard. 

The socialism/communism that the BLM movement promotes will not correct or fix the problem. In fact, the socialism espoused by the BLM movement will only exacerbate the problem by taking from a class of people what they believe is theirs, by disregarding the law or at least making exceptions within the law based on personal appeal and exceptions to it. 

As Star suggests, there is no legal proceeding or ruling from the Supreme Court that will correct the problem. If guns are totally banned from America, that will not solve the problem or issues. No legislative action can fix a problem that stems from the heart and the hearts of men and mankind. The only thing that will fix and or correct the problem is a reversion back to sound moral truths and values based on what is true. Not based on what someone accepts or perceives to be true. There is a vast difference.

Acceptance Of Truth

Pilate stood before Jesus and asked, “What is truth?” (Jn. 18:38) What he did not know, but soon found out afterward, was the Jesus was different than anyone he had met up until that point in his life. To know Jesus, was to know truth! To know him and to have met his is what made him want to wash his hands clean of any misconception or negative association with him. To know the word of the Lord IS to know truth: 

John 6:63 ~ It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 

We live in a society that feels that truth, moral right and the assessment of moral wrong are negotiable and that concepts of absolute truth are hindrances to freedom. Mistakenly, many contend that truth and freedom comes from an unlimited abundance of objects from which to choose. However, in reality truth only comes from the unfettered ability to make a choice and once a choice is made, the individual is bound by the choice that he makes.

God has stated what is good, right and moral for mankind to live by. Within his statements are LIFE and pure freedom. If God has said that premarital abstinence is what we should experience and we follow his mandate and proscriptions, how many unwanted pregnancies would be avoided? How many STD’s would not be transmitted? How many sleepless nights would be avoided simply because someone followed and obeyed the truth? I don’t want to paint the picture that following truth is easy by any means, but what I do want to say is that following truth and right, makes living and life much more fulfilling. 

John 15:11 ~ These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

The law of God has come through Jesus to fulfill our joy, not to hamper or hinder it. We are hampered by our redefinition of truth and moral right. When that happens society feels and knows there is an injustice and there will always be opposing ends of the spectrum of truth, right and wrong. 

Man’s redefinition of marriage has hampered us as a society, not freed us. Man’s redefinition of life and when that life has rights, has hampered us, not freed us. Man’s moral landscape of pluralism and subjectivism has hampered us, not freed us. Man’s desire to rid himself of God, and standards of objective moral values and truth has hampered us, not freed us.

The best that we can do is realize that as a society, if wrong can be identified, then right can certainly be known. Since we have been created by God, then within every one of us is the ability to know that which is right and distinguish it from that which is wrong. Even at that truth and right does not need our agreement. What is right is right by itself and what is wrong is wrong everyday of the week and cannot be amended to be right. 

One thing I know, to know Jesus is to know the truth and to know the truth is to know his word, because HIS word is right! In a word where there is so much unrest, we should want to know the rest of Jesus above all other things and we will only find that rest when we yield to him, his word and his law, because his law delivers LIFE to all men who hear and do it. 

Blessed! 

Read more!

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 13 ~ Christian Liberalism

Recently, Wheaton College Professor Dr. Larycia Hawkins gained national attention when she was placed on administrative leave by Provost Stan Jones. It has been reported that Dr. Hawkins troubles began when she decided to wear a hijab, a garment associated with religious Muslim women, to show her solidarity with Muslim women, a class of persons whom she felt were being marginalized and ridiculed within American society, in particularly because of recent terrorist attacks within the United States, said to have been inspired by ISIS.

Dr. Hawkins explained her actions in her Facebook POST as follows: 

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

She further stated:

"As part of my Advent Worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church."

In her recent press conference on this issue, (see video at the end of this article) she stated:

"Our love for Jesus compels us to make no peace with oppression because Christianity is political or it is not Christianity. That drove my solidarity with women in the hijab, particularly Muslims in the hijab—because you know, Jesus’ mother Mary wore a hijab too."

She went on to state:

"Throughout my years of service at Wheaton College, I have never waivered from my commitment to the Christian doctrines elucidated in the Statement of Faith."

Distinguishing & Differentiating Issues

I would be the first to say that I do not know anything about Dr. Hawkins employment

agreement with Wheaton College or about any reason or right that her employer may have had to monitor Dr. Hawkins' Facebook account. While I would support Dr. Hawkins' right to free speech and to privacy, I must point out that it also seems appropriate that Dr. Hawkins, if she has agreed to a statement of faith, or to certain Christian centered doctrines and teachings, that she be faithful to those teachings even in her private life. This is especially important as she is not only a representative of the college, but more importantly of Christ.   

The media has focused its attention on the Dr.'s freedom and right of expression. However, the primary issue, as I have examined this case and the statements, are clearly her assertion that Muslims (who she sought to encourage) and Christians, worship "the same God". To be fair, Dr. Hawkins was not asserting these ideas independently. Her statements echo those of Pope Francis' who also recently affirmed that both Christians and Muslims worship "the same God".

The issues seem to have been convoluted or intertwined, until the person casually associated with religious doctrines and tenets of faith, assume that the only issue is the wearing of the hijab. In fact in Dr. Hawkins' statement and press conference, this is the primary and initial point of focus. Her theological assertion is downplayed, but I believe that her theological position is the primary, if not the only issue at hand, as you will see in this post. 

Read more!

Hillary Says Your Religious Belief Must Change

From the woman who once said that that the bible is the biggest influence on her life:

Q: " If you had to name one book that made you who you are today, what would it be?"

"At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.
~ "NY Times Sunday Book Review 6/11/2014 HERE

However, it seems that the former first lady of the United states, senator, Secretary Of State, and 2016 Presidential candidate, says that "beliefs", some of which she learned and held dear, many of which come from the bible that she reads and "religion" have to be "changed" especially when those beliefs conflict with so called women's reproductive rights (better yet, the right to kill babies by means of abortion or abortion rights)

Mrs. Clinton says this in the enclosed interview:

"Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."~ Hillary Clinton, Women In The World Summit 4/23/2015

The question is, why and how does one "change" from "beliefs" or faith proposition that are based and rooted in the bible or biblical understanding? I mean the critic can assert all they want that all kinds of biases can be based on religious "belief". However, they are hard pressed to make a successful argument....

Slavery...hardly..."endorsed" in a biblical paradigm. The fact is the abolition of slavery in the modern era came about by the faithful adherence to the bible and its message.

Racism...YAWN!...not endorsed in any manner in a biblical paradigm.

Polygamy....Think again...the biblical prohibition for the Kings was to NOT multiply wives as heathens practiced (Deut. 17:17) , but that ONE man and ONE woman would be the foundation of the family. (Gen. 2:24, Mt. 19:4. Mk. 10:6-8)

Here is the part of her speech under review:

Is this much to do about nothing? Or is this an issue of importance? Does the radical left feel that religious beliefs and values are up for compromise? If so, then how does "freedom of religion" exist?

If religious beliefs can be compromised, then how are they true? Are they only relatively true, or are they absolutely true, or does it simply depend on what "beliefs" that we are talking about?

One thing is for sure, if this lady becomes President, we are in trouble even more than we are now....OOOHHH Boy!!!!!

Blessed!
Read more!