Tag Archives: Jesus

Bernie Sanders disagrees with Jesus

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the Gospel of John, Chapter 3, verse 18, Jesus tells the Pharisee Nicodemus, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Former presidential candidate and junior senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders doesn’t share Jesus’s point of view and is peeved because Russell T. Vought, Donald Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), does.

In a 2016 article entitled “Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity,” Vought expressed the opinion that the Christian college was justified in firing their first female African-American tenured professor, Larycia Hawkins, for sympathizing with Islam and for posing on Facebook dressed in a hijab.

In defense of Wheaton’s decision, Vought wrote that “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

At Vought’s Senate Budget Committee confirmation hearing, during introductory remarks, a visibly annoyed Sanders directed his comments toward the nominee while pontificating about “[t]his country, since its inception, [having] struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms.”  Sanders stressed, “We must not go backward.”

Sorry, but Bernie the Socialist is the last person who should be sermonizing about the inception of a nation whose foundational philosophies are diametrically opposed to everything he espouses.

Moreover, rather than refer to Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as his guide, which says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” Bernie chose instead to “overcome… all forms of discrimination” by verbally scourging a Christian.

For denying that God is government and that salvation comes from the state, Vought probably comes off to intolerant Sanders as a political heretic.  Meanwhile, despite the Quran (3:56) saying, “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter,” Bernie continues to support Minnesota Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to head the DNC.

Sounding like Pontius Pilate interrogating Jesus, the liberal senator applied a religious litmus test to the president’s nominee by challenging Vought’s belief in basic Christian theology, asking:

I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Sanders continued probing: “Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?”  Vought replied, “Absolutely not, Senator.  I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.”

Bernie is a millionaire socialist who publicly embraces sharing the wealth while privately practicing the religion of Marxism by vacationing in a $600,000 summer home.  That’s why Vought’s unwavering adherence to a “set of principles” is hard for Bernie to grasp.

In an attempt to defend his position, Vought said, “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs.”

The irony here is that Vought was explaining his belief to a pro-abortion advocate who demands a standard from Vought on behalf of Muslims that the religion of liberalism denies the unborn.

However, based on Bernie’s boorishness, apparently, liberals are certified to be disrespectful toward anyone who disagrees with progressivism.  That authorization may be why Sanders felt comfortable interrupting Vought to say, “And do you think your statement that you put in that publication… do you think that’s respectful of other religions?”

Vought answered that he wrote the post as an alumnus of Wheaton College, which “has a statement of faith that speaks clearly with regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.”

In response, Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) chimed in and laid bare the left’s hypocrisy concerning truth being relative when he admonished Bernie by saying: “I hope that we are not questioning the faith of others, and how they interpret their faith to themselves.”

Then, by chastising Vought for being a biblical purist, versus a vacillator like himself, Democrat senator from Maryland Chris Van Hollen exposed the schizophrenic left’s truth-being-relative hypocrisy even more.  The Maryland senator attested that “I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God.”

If what Chris “in my view” Van Hollen says is true, then Vought’s interpretation of the Bible, regardless of how repugnant it is to Mr. Sanders, shouldn’t be a problem – should it?

On behalf of the senator, following the contentious hearing, a spokesperson delivered the following statement:

In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry – condemning an entire group of people because of their faith – cannot be part of any public policy.

The nomination of a candidate like Vought, “who has expressed such strong Islamaphobic language,” the statement said, “is simply unacceptable.”

Suffice it to say that our nation’s founding principle of religious freedom did not equate tolerance with acceptance of things like atheism, Native American shamanism, paganism, or “Mahometanism.”  In fact, in 1779, George Washington delivered a speech that expressed to Delaware Indian chiefs his theological convictions:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

Therefore, if George Washington were running for deputy director of the OMB, Bernie Sanders would accuse him of being a phobic-racist-bigot and then say, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.  I will vote no.”

 

RESCUED! NOW A RESCUER: Kent Brantly’s True Calling

ebola-medico-1-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Jesus promised the faithful in Matt 10:39 that “Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” In August I wrote an article entitled “Kent Brantly Lives the Gospel from a Sick Bed. “ In the piece I said I believed that Dr. Brantly, who contracted Ebola while serving as a medical missionary for Samaritan’s Purse in Liberia, would survive the virus because of his selfless, Christ-like attitude towards serving the sick and dying.

After being given a blood transfusion from a youthful Liberian Ebola survivor that Brantly had helped care for and receiving a dose of the experimental drug Z-Mapp, and after being flown from West Africa to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for treatment, miraculously Kent Brantly did survive a virus that has been known to kill 90% of its victims.

At the time there were some who reacted to my praising Brantly with mockery. The gist of what was being said was that if God helped heal Brantly, why did God let His follower get Ebola in the first place?

I think we now have the answer to that question.

Since returning from West Africa and rising from his sick bed healed and whole, Kent Brantly is being used by God to provide blood transfusions to Americans who’ve been stricken by the Ebola virus.

If Kent Brantly had never gotten and survived Ebola, his blood would not have the antibodies needed by those who might otherwise succumb to the disease.

Thus far, Brantly’s blood has been transfused into Dr. Nick Sacra, who also contracted Ebola during his work in West Africa and survived the disease. Also receiving Dr. Brantly’s blood are NBC freelance cameraman Ashoka Mukpoand and most recently Nina Pham, the 26-year-old Dallas nurse who contracted the virus while caring for “patient zero”, Thomas Eric Duncan.

Unfortunately for Duncan, Brantly offered his blood but the two men’s blood type was not a match. That’s why the Liberian Ebola patient who brought the virus to America, despite receiving topnotch care, subsequently died at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital where Nurse Nina Pham is now in isolation.

Now we come to find out that the critical care nurse, like Kent Brantly, is also a follower of Jesus Christ, and that her Bible teacher Tom Ha said, “I expect, with the big heart she has, she went beyond what she was supposed to do to help anyone in need.”

So, in what could be a tragic situation, God has provided a faith-building story that hushes the scoffers and reveals God’s power and purpose in the midst of catastrophe.
Little did Brantly know at the time that Liberia would not be the place where his blood would be poured out to save the lives of many.

Instead, it would be here at home, where the virus he survived would become the antidote that would save American lives. And exponentially, for each survivor more blood will be available to save others falling victim to the deadly pathogen that has crossed the ocean with the intent to wreak havoc, death and destruction.

When Kent Brantly was released from Emory he called it a “miraculous day” and then went on to say:

I cannot thank you enough for your prayers and your support. But what I can tell you is that I serve a faithful God who answers prayers.

Through the care of the Samaritan’s Purse and…missionary team in Liberia, the use of an experimental drug, and the expertise and resources of the health care team at Emory University Hospital, God saved my life.

For all those people who ridiculed Kent Brantly’s gratefulness and thanksgiving for God’s healing by snidely asking, “Why, if God loves Kent Brantly so much, did he allow His servant to get Ebola in the first place,” the answer is found in Genesis 50:20 which says, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

Kent Brantly’s blood has now been given to three victims of a disease that never should have been in America in the first place.

In 1 Peter 2:24 the Apostle says, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” Hence, God is using the blood of a man who “died to sin and lives for righteousness” to bring Christ’s healing to the wound called Ebola.

Robertson v. Bergdahl: Liberals and Two Bearded Guys

berg-philOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

The Bergdahl affair is proving to be very enlightening. Take for instance the liberal hypocrisy concerning two guys with beards, both of whom have religious affiliations with credos that have strong opinions concerning homosexuality.

One of the two bearded fellows is Bob Bergdahl, father of recently-released POW Bowe Bergdahl.

Besides his whiskers, Bob seems to proudly exhibit a strong affinity for Islam, a religion that tolerates the mistreatment of women, children, and homosexuals, and has a violent faction that has killed thousands of innocent Americans. Bob is currently one of the two top recipients of the left’s politically-correct attention, protection, and affirmation.

The other one is the LGBT community. That’s where the duplicity comes in.

What’s uncertain is whether Bob the UPS guy from Idaho is a full-fledged radical Muslim or not, but based on his Muslim-style beard and Rose Garden comments, something’s clearly not kosher in Boise.

Bob Bergdahl showed up in the already rat-infested Rose Garden, where he demonstrated what he’s learned from five years of studying the Rosetta Stone Arabic edition and introduced America to Pashto, the language of the Pashtun tribe, which makes up the vast majority of the Taliban force.

Under the approving eye of Barack Hussein Obama, Bowe’s father Bob recited the most common expression in the Koran — “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” — which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.” Quite frankly, this is not a typical utterance for a supposed Presbyterian from Idaho.

To be fair to a worried father, Bergdahl’s decision to do so might have had less to do with Islam and more to do with the unbridled exuberance of a man happy that his son and five senior leaders of the Taliban, one of whom is the former head of the Taliban’s army, were released from captivity.

As for POW Bowe, the New York Times claims the young Bergdahl wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship, was “disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life.” Those could be the reasons that Bowe, aka Abdullah, purportedly walked off base and joined the enemy. He taught Taliban fighters how to make bombs from mobile phones, and, according to one of his captors, even converted to Islam.

Bob, Bowe’s father, says that his son became so immersed in the Taliban culture that he completely forgot how to speak English. That must be why Bergdahl felt it was incumbent upon him to show off his own fluency in the tongue of the Taliban by expressing the victory call of Islam, which some say sanctified and claimed the White House for Islam.  

Moreover, Dad, whose neighbors swear he still attends a Christian church, applauded the release of the Gitmo Five and, based on a suspicious deleted Tweet from his Twitter feed, seems anxious to see more of those in cahoots with his son’s abductors go free and get back to the business of blowing up Americans.

If Bergdahl the elder is sympathetic toward the cause of those who took his son hostage, then his behavior is more bizarre than if kidnap/rape victim Elizabeth Smart’s father Ed, after fighting for nine months to find his missing daughter, lobbied for her captors Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Ileen Barzee to be released into a schoolyard full of 14-year-old girls, which of course never would have happened.

So from all indications, Bob Bergdahl, whose Twitter follower’s page features progressive Bernie Saunders (I-VT) as well as a huge Arabic following, does seem to be orientated toward Islam.  

Yet Obama, who vacillates between supporting the Muslim cause and planning to strategically erect LGBT memorials in National Parks, hugged the guy whose part-time religion flogs, stones, and hangs any and all members of Obama’s beloved LGBT community.

Which raises the question: What’s up with America’s “First Gay President” smiling and embracing a man whose second language includes terms that describe homosexuality as an obscene act (al-fahsha’) and abnormal (shudhudh)?

And then there’s the other guy with the big beard. That heavily whiskered gent is Phil Robertson, the patriarch of Duck Dynasty. If not for Phil’s accompanying mustache and camouflage gear, Bergdahl and Robertson could pass as members of ZZ Top. But what’s unique about the duo is not their resemblance to Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill, but how the Islamic-leaning guy, despite his affiliation with a religion that harshly punishes homosexuals, has been implicitly validated by homosexual advocate Barack Obama right in the Rose Garden.

Meanwhile the Cajun, English-speaking Phil Robertson, who is equally verbal and unapologetic about his adherence to the Christian faith – which also condemns homosexuality – is consistently demonized by Obama’s friends and supporters and portrayed as a vile homophobe.

The big difference between Bob and Phil is that while Boise Bob’s embraced ideology stresses brutal treatment of suspected homosexuals, Robertson’s religious principles focus on God’s forgiveness, love, repentance, and grace.

What is clear is that Phil Robertson identifies with a political ideology and religious inclination that makes him a target for unforgiving criticism from the left. Even though Bergdahl articulates tenets much harsher than Phil’s, Bob’s obvious liberalism, such as his support for “Crowdfunding the reforestation of Afghanistan tree by tree,” keeps him immune, regardless of the militant, anti-America nature of his beliefs.

So there is an upside to the whole Gitmo Five-to-one disgruntled-American-soldier tradeoff: If Barack Obama hadn’t flouted U.S. law to further his Islamo-centric agenda, Americans would have never gotten to meet the delightful Bob “As-salamu alaykum” Bergdahl, the man who regularly exchanges niceties with observant Muslims on Twitter, and has a curious propensity to speak to and advocate for the mujahedeen.

And thanks to Mr. Bergdahl’s distinctively Muslim facial hair and his obvious religious bent, America now knows for sure that if one bearded guy praises Allah, he’ll be hugged by Mr. Obama, but if the other bearded guy praises Jesus, he’ll be reviled.

Forget Jesus, Let’s Make Philip Seymour Hoffman a Hero

philip_seymour_hoffman_41441

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It’s always sad when human beings destroy themselves as a result of poor decisions, selfishness, and an inability to resist temptation.

It doesn’t make the tragedy any more disturbing if the person is a rich, famous actor than if he or she were a kid in middle America who stupidly got mixed up with the wrong crowd and ended up becoming a statistic.

It’s all disturbing.

However, what is also tragic is the reaction to the death of a famous person by a nation who refuses to acknowledge real tragedy like 3,700 aborted babies a day.

Or to discuss the truth behind the four Americans left to die in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. Or to salute every flag-covered coffin unloaded from military cargo planes. Or remember murdered heroes like Border Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, and US Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

America has morphed into a culture where mentioning the name of Jesus Christ, a man who willingly allowed His hands and feet to be nailed to a cross so that fallen humanity might live, is fast becoming an almost criminal offense.

images Contrast society’s disdain for Jesus with its love of Hollywood icons. Actors such as Cory Monteith, who starred in Glee, or Heath Ledger, who played a gay cowboy, or Philip Seymour Hoffman, who won an Academy Award for his portrayal of Truman Capote, were all zipped into a black body bag and slid into a coroner’s hearse after overdosing on drugs.

And despite the pitiful, self-centered way they lived and died,  all three are objects of worship, given  god-like status

Anti-gun while pro-shooting up, Philip Seymour Hoffman is no hero – he was clearly a tortured soul. Talented though he was, Hoffman’s death has proven that he was both weak and reckless, neither of which are  admirable character traits.

Robert Downey Jr.

Robert Downey Jr.

Relapsing after being 23 years sober, Philip Seymour Hoffman left for his small children the knowledge that their Dad was found dead on the floor of his bathroom in a posh West Village apartment. Police say that Hoffman’s body laid there for hours, clad only in shorts and a t-shirt, surrounded by syringes and bags of heroin, with a needle still stuck in his arm.

If America is that desperate to make a hero out of an Hollywood actor, how about Robert Downey Jr.? Downey kicked drugs, cleaned up his life, and so far has never relapsed. Considering he was raised in Hollywood, that’s heroic.

Pastor Saeed Abedini

Pastor Saeed Abedini

Moreover, if America is searching for a real hero, they should look to father and husband Pastor Saeed Abedini.

Abedini has been unlawfully incarcerated in an Iranian jail since 2012.

Abedini stands a good chance of being executed if he continues to refuse to deny his faith in Jesus.

And while the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman is sad, what’s sadder still is a society where such a person meets a self-inflicted end, yet somehow becomes a romanticized object of glorification.

Meanwhile true heroes, including the one true God, are ignored, despised, and rejected.

The Obama Doctrine of Control Through Dissension

boOriginally posted at American Thinker

The president has more than proven that he is not a uniter.  He is a committed divider.  Jesus said, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”  Hence, try as we might, it’s getting harder to ignore what appears to be a burning desire on Obama’s part to destroy the great and glorious house called America.

With an eye toward stepping in and reorganizing everything from our social and economic structure to the U.S. Constitution, it appears that Obama’s plan to gain control involves stirring up discord and agitating every area of society to the point of near-collapse.

Barack Obama has managed to undermine the nation’s unanimity through the deliberate fostering of racial, political, religious, and class-based conflict.  In other words, the President of the United States is actively endeavoring to community-organize America to death.

Chicago-style troublemaker Barack Obama acquired his skill set while nestled close to the pedagogical breast of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.  It was there that the president was schooled in the fine art of community organizing, and excelled as a top student.

Alinsky taught that in order to ‘disorganize the old and organize the new’ one must “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent” and “agitate to the point of conflict.” Unfortunately, Alinsky’s instructions are alarmingly similar to the president’s leadership style.

Undoubtedly, Obama understands the Alinsky principle that teaches that in order “To organize a community you must understand that … the word ‘community’ means community of interests, not physical community.”  That’s why the president subtly stirs dissension in diverse places.  His method is to “Pick…freeze…personalize… and polarize” a wide variety of groups, individuals, and philosophies.

Therefore, in his unending quest to “fundamentally transform” America, Barack Obama has stealthily managed to expose many a raw nerve.  Still, rather than make a blatant attempt to further divide Americans, the president cunningly pokes his finger into past grievances in hopes of creating festering sores he seems committed to exacerbating.

Proficient community organizer that he is, Obama inflames old hurts with veiled suggestions that incite hostility among factions, and then uses silence to offer tacit approval of the hate speech spouted by his allies. Those tried-and-true Alinsky polarizing tactics alienate those who disagree with Obama’s agenda by portraying whole swathes of Americans as menaces to a national unity he purports to desire, but continues to undermine.

Yet even while employing doublespeak, blithe disregard for the facts, subterfuge, and occasional impulsivity, the president has been able to project the image to some of unifier as he carefully manipulates the tools of divisiveness to the benefit of his long-term agenda.

Obama darkly suggests that the Catholic Church is the arch enemy of women; Americans who just want immigration laws to be enforced and the border secured are dream-destroying xenophobes; excluding Democrat donors, rich people are portrayed as selfish parasites; pro-traditional marriage advocates are homophobes; gun owners are a threat to the safety of every American child, and the antagonistic beat goes on.

Now, in what appears to be the next phase, macro acrimony is being perpetrated on an increasingly micro level.

Based on his public response, it’s apparent that Barack Obama, just as he did with Henry Gates, Jr. and Officer Crowley, must have felt that George Zimmerman, an Hispanic man originally assumed to be white, “acted stupidly” when defending himself against Trayvon Martin, a black teenager whom Zimmerman claims was trying to kill him.

America already knows that Obama believes that “if [he] had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.” That fatherly declaration may have been a foreshadowing of the president’s attempt to purposely foment racial unrest by dispatching the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service to descend on Florida to “work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

And if that’s not bad enough, the Obama Administration’s “Insider Threat Program” is now promoting suspicion among federal co-workers by asking colleagues to spy on and report one another based on criteria that can only be described as wholly subjective.

Organized divisiveness masked as an attempt to keep America safe, the program asks federal employees and contractors to pay “particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel.”  The stated hope is that co-workers can predict whether “suspicious action” might indicate that the guy they’ve worked side-by-side with for the last 20 years has plans to do “harm to the United States.”

As a result, federal workers have officially been added to a list of potential threats that already includes pro-life advocates, ex-military, Christians of all denominations, Tea Party activists, Conservatives, and just about any group on the planet that is perceived to pose problems for Barack Obama’s progressive vision for an Alinsky-inspired “world not as it is,” but as he thinks “it should be.”

At the rate the Obama-instigated dissension is progressing, before long, American neighborhoods will devolve into combat zones and children will turn in parents for being enemies of the state. In the meantime, instead of asking the president about his favorite food, some journalist, kid or otherwise, should inquire of him how his constant fostering of disunity helps drive home the point that the state of our union is in need of stronger alliances?

Nevertheless, the Bible emphatically states that “A troublemaker plants seeds of strife.” From the first day he was elected, the president has consistently sown seeds of strife, and, as a result, it has become clear that Barack Obama is indeed implementing Alinsky’s strategy on a national level.  Apparently the president hopes that if he stirs up enough dissension, America’s great and glorious house will be unable to stand.  Then, it will be on to the coup de grâce, when Barack Obama finally gets to implement the type of control he so fervidly desires.

Did ‘The Man of Steel’ Steal Jesus?

images1Originally posted at The Blacksphere Hollywood loves to demean Jesus.  Now that Superman: Man of Steel is about to burst onto the big screen, movie maven Ross McD of Movie Battleground is attempting to unravel the supernatural symbolism associated with Superman.

Ross engaged Zack Snyder, the director of Superman: Man of Steel, to quiz him about what Ross McD calls “Kal-El’s …religious baggage.”

According to a smarmy Ross, Superman is Jesus because Superman and his father Jor-El have a beard.  Superman and his dad have superpowers.  Superman’s dad sent him to Earth to save humanity from itself and to “be a god to them.”  Superman was born in a stable, his earthly father was a tradesman, and Superman’s earthly mother obviously wasn’t seen around the neighborhood in maternity clothes.

When earthly people were cruel to Superman he remained kind.  Not to mention walking on water, the betrayal for money, the unselfish sacrifice of his life at 33-years-old for the good of mankind, and all the religious inferences and symbols, like Superman striking the crucifix pose.Man_Of_Steel_SupermanTrailerPic14.jpg

Interviewing Snyder at Warner Bros. studios in Los Angeles, Ross McD, insulting Jesus and all, probably didn’t expect the serious answers Snyder provided him with. After all, Ross writing that one of the reasons Superman is like Jesus is “He’s friends with Batman,” and because Superman “Punches Darwinites who believe ‘evolution always wins,’” clearly shows that Ross McD wasn’t making a serious connection.

Snyder was a little more thoughtful and acknowledged the Biblical comparisons, then said, “I think the relationship between Jesus and Superman is not a thing we invented in this film, it is a thing that has been talked about since the creation of Superman.”

According to Snyder, “in a weird way,” Superman’s resemblance to Jesus was probably “talked about more when Superman was created than it is now.”

Maybe that’s because society has seen to it that Jesus is majorly uncool – just ask Ross McD.  Zack Snyder said that Superman’s resemblance to Jesus is “one of those things mythologically you take for granted, a little bit.” You mean like Ross McD associating Jesus with Superman because the Man of Steel is “Mortal enemies with an evil dude with a goatee?” That kind of taking-for-granted?

Waxing mythological, Snyder said that personally he tends toward the fairy-tale nature of the Man of Steel story but said “I think it’s drawing on all mythology: comic book, religion, ancient, philosophical.”

Clearly, the Movie Battleground snarkster wasn’t interviewing Zack Snyder to engage him in thoughtful conversation about the Biblical Jesus, but instead was using sarcasm as a vehicle to démodé Jesus Christ to a cartoon character who, as Ross put it, “[d]idn’t use his superpowers to kick [his enemy’s] asses.”

superman-is-based-on-jesus-christ-300x247

Did Hugo Chávez Pick the New Pope?

120103020208-chavez-praying-story-topOriginally posted at American Thinker

Recently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted that Hugo Chávez would return on the clouds with Jesus on Resurrection Day. Then, Venezuela’s left-wing “president in charge” and hopeful successor to Hugo Chávez, Vice President Nicolás Maduro, gave Hugo credit for convincing Christ to influence the papal conclave to choose a South American pope. Immediately following the white smoke puffing from the Vatican chimney, Nicolás did some puffing of his own, only his was emanating from a bodily orifice bearing no resemblance to a chimney.

Based on his comments, Nicolás Maduro apparently thinks the room-temperature despot is sitting at the right hand of God, still fulfilling the calling of dictator. In the mystical eyes of Maduro, a follower of the late Bhagawan guru Śri Sathya Sai Baba, Chávez is also a “spiritual saint and miracle worker.” The late president of Venezuela is proving so potent a force that at his funeral he actually got Mahmoud to lose his head and commit “haram” by hugging his grief-stricken mother, Elena Frias de Chávez .

Nonetheless, Maduro, who must be smoking something other than Venezuelan cigars, said, “We know that our commander has risen up there and is face to face with Christ.” That comment, which wasn’t a joke, prompted laughter in the crowd Nicolás was addressing. In Maduro’s opinion, Hugo was such a great persuader that when the conclave in Rome was having difficulty choosing a pope, Hugo “got to Christ,” pulled Him aside and whispered in His ear, and thus “influenced things so that a South American pope was chosen.”

And that’s not all. According to Maduro, “One of these days [Chávez] is going to call a constitutional congress in heaven to change the church in the world, so that the people, only Christ’s pure people rule in this world.” That sounds more like Mahmoud’s vision for Islam than Jesus’ vision for a fallen planet the Bible says is destined for destruction by fire.

Besides, if Hugo Chávez is so persuasive that he was able to move the hand of God to install Argentine Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I, how come he couldn’t persuade the Almighty to cure his terminal pelvic cancer and allow him to oppress Venezuela for another 14 years?

Everyone knows how Hugo’s story ended. Therefore, in death as in life, Chávez is so highly esteemed that there were plans to call in a taxidermist — of sorts — to preserve Hugo’s body so that he can be put on exhibition in Caracas. That way, Chávez can lie in state in a manner similar to dead dictators he has admired, such as Kim Jong Il, Hồ Chí Minh, Stalin, Lenin, and Argentine megalomaniac Evita ‘don’t cry for me’ Perón.

Based on Maduro’s assessment of the sainted Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, one would think the nation of Venezuela was in possession of an incorruptible corpse. Now we come to find out that after leaving St. Hugo’s body on display in a military academy like some sweaty salami sandwich that’s been sitting in the sun too long, embalming experts who were called in are of the opinion that Chávez’s carcass may have passed its sale date, so to speak.

Russian embalming specialists had expressed their willingness to drain Chávez’s blood from his tissues, remove his organs, pump him full of embalming fluid and submerge his sorry ass into a bathtub filled with formaldehyde, and then put the lid on it, wrap it in a white cloth, and basically pickle him in a room with “precise temperature and humidity conditions” for six months.

The Russians were even willing to instruct the Venezuelans on the upkeep, temperature and humidity requirements, the “bacterial threats,” the need for a sterile sarcophagus, the twice-weekly inspection, and the need for Hugo to be submerged every year and a half in the embalming solution for one month, then dried off, gussied up, and plopped back out on the display bed.

Now we come to find out that because Chávez was distracted by telling Jesus who His pick for pope should be, he forgot to transmit the directive to the people in charge of his preservation that if his corpse was going to be dressed up and put on permanent display, “precautionary steps would have to have [been] taken much earlier.” In other words, once again, from the smell of things, there’s something rotten in Caracas.

Nuking Hugo

zarahustra_home_1

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Forget “Abraham, Martin and John,” now we have Hugo, Jesus and Mahdi because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is convinced that Chávez will return to the earth with the redeemer of Islam, 12th Imam Mahdi’s personal deputy Jesus Christ.

Extolling Jesus as Mahdi’s deputy is unusual coming from a man that despises Jews, which is precisely what Jesus the ‘deputy’ is.  Maybe Mahmoud is just a little confused and thinks Jesus, who the Shias call Isa, is Roman Catholic like Hugo.

Either way, one thing is for sure: Iran’s president believes Hugo Chávez’s stature is such that he’ll be returning on “resurrection day” with religious figures Mahmoud believes are Islam’s allies — even if they’re not.

Grief-stricken over Chávez’s death, Iran’s president wrote a letter of condolence to Venezuela’s interim president, Nicolás Maduro, in which he spoke in glowing terms about the dead dictator.

According to crazy-as-a-loon Mahmoud, although Hugo is very much dead, he believes that:

Chávez is alive, as long as justice, love and freedom are living. He is alive, as long as piety, brightness, and humanity are living. He is alive, as long as nations are alive and struggle for consolidating independence, justice and kindness.

Okeydokey.

Placing Chávez in the company of a deity, Iran’s president continued his tribute:

I have no doubt that he will come back, and along with Christ the Savior, the heir to all saintly and perfect men, and will bring peace, justice and perfection for all.

Pouring it on with more gusto than he does when talking about wiping Israel “off the map,” Mahmoud concluded:

Hugo Chávez was a name known to all nations. His name is reminiscent of pure innocence, kindness, fortitude and love for the people, to serve the people, especially the poor and the victims of colonialism and imperialism by arrogant powers. He is indeed a martyr of the road to service to Venezuelan people, and preserving human and revolutionary values.

All that love, peace, and perfection talk is unusual coming from an anti-Semite Twelver Shī’a Muslim bent on personally ushering in the return of the 12th Imam by generating a worldwide cataclysm with a nuclear bomb.

Undeterred by mutually assured destruction, Mahmoud is willing to see Iran go up in smoke as an ultimate act of martyrdom on behalf of Muhammad al-Mahdii.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s plan?  Destroy the Zionist nation where, whether he realizes it or not Jesus Christ is due to return east of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. So if Ahmadinejad nukes Israel to usher in chaos on the wrong day and Chávez is coming back with Jesus, Mahmoud will be nuking Hugo.

 

Expunging Truth from the 57th Inauguration

Pastor-Louie-Giglio

Originally posted at American Thinker

Christians from all across America are outraged that popular evangelical pastor Louie Giglio of laminin fame has been banished and will no longer be delivering the benediction at President Obama’s second and possibly even more historic inauguration, due to take place on Martin Luther King Day.  For daring to speak truth, Pastor Giglio, after being marked with an anti-gay branding iron and summarily booted from the dais, is now pretending to have willingly backed out of the function.

The controversy concerns a sermon Giglio delivered in the 1990s that endorsed the 5,000-year-old biblical teaching that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice displeasing to God, ergo a sin.  After learning about the inflammatory dissertation, the White House, whose stated desire is to have an inaugural that reflects diversity, immediately distanced itself from Mr. Giglio.

Supposedly, Louie was chosen initially because of his work combating human trafficking.  If the ousted minister had prevailed, Mr. Obama would have surely found a way to exploit the pastor’s involvement in the global mission by tying human slavery to the plight of those Obama believes are enslaved by a system that denies social justice to poor minorities.

Nonetheless, on behalf of the president with the mysterious past, Presidential Inaugural Committee spokesperson Addie Whisenant said that “at the time of his selection.” the committee was unaware of Giglio’s 20-year-old comments.  Ms. Whisenant went on to remind affronted gay activists that Giglio’s sentiments do not “reflect [Obama’s] desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.”

Therefore, it appears that if a Christian dares oppose secular society’s effort to accommodate a radical homosexual agenda, after a public excoriation, he can expect to be exiled to life beyond the city gates.  Tolerance and inclusion can now be officially defined as the rejection of traditional values and the forced acceptance of aberrant sexual behavior.

In her prompt response, Ms. Whisenant reassured Mr. Obama’s gay supporters that the committee is working to “select someone to deliver the benediction” whose “beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”  The term “all Americans” apparently excludes Christian-Americans, who, with the exception of saccharine pastor Joel Osteen, are neither included nor accepted.  For that reason, anti-bullying bully Dan Savage would be a more suitable candidate to consecrate the gaieties.

Either way, in the wake of what Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called “the new moral McCarthyism,” Christian leaders are pointing out that in order to be a true reflection of diversity, the inauguration should include the full spectrum of opinion, including viewpoints that may be disagreeable to homosexuals.

Furthermore, as if time gone by could somehow change God’s established truth, other Christian leaders are suggesting that Reverend Giglio’s “homosexuality is bad” comments lack relevancy because they were expressed way back in the Clinton era, when Barack Obama was tithing to Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic, black separatist Trinity United Church of Christ.

What’s most disturbing about the Giglio affair isn’t so much that he’s being scorned for what he said twenty years ago, but rather that for two decades, liberals had no problem with the content of his sermons.  Frankly, unless the reverend was planning to rebuke the masses gathered round the Capitol steps, it’s just as well that he remains hunkered down with his colossal “indifference is not an option” skyward reaching hand back in Atlanta, Georgia.

Not only that, but Louie Giglio should also be grateful that his anti-gay comments were exposed prior to the event.  If, God forbid, the Presidential Inaugural Committee had caught wind of his opinion midway through the invocation, Louie might have instantaneously disappeared through a trapdoor built into the floor of the inaugural platform.

In a way, Louie Giglio being “honored” to accept the president’s invitation to pray over his swearing-in is worse than the Atlanta minister getting the bum’s rush by the predictable left.  What, pray tell, was Giglio thinking?  What was he going to ask God to do on Obama’s behalf?  Which politically correct Bible was Louie going to be allowed to use while praying — the Sodom and Gomorrah edition, or the Queen James version?

Was Louie planning to entreat the Lord to bless another four years of Barack Obama funding abortion, sanctioning gay marriage, handing out free birth control to promiscuous college coeds, limiting God-given freedoms, spurning Israel, covering up crucifixes at Catholic universities, and decimating America’s constitutional right to religious liberty?  (And that’s just for openers.)

Was the Passion Ministries pastor whose words influence many of America’s Christian youth also willing to accept the responsibility for putting verbal and visual approbation on the second term of a Scripture-quoting president whose first term stopped just short of mocking everything “pure, lovely and of good repute?”

Historically, rejection from the world proves that a disciple of Christ is on a path to righteousness.  Thus, it should be the goal of every Christian to be “despised and rejected” by the likes of men like Barack Obama.  After all, offending heathens was Jesus’s forte — so much so that the leaders of His day nailed Him to a tree for speaking truths they didn’t want to hear.

After “respectfully [ahem] withdraw[ing his] acceptance of the President’s invitation,” Louie Giglio promptly changed his focus to preserving “the collective right to hold differing views.”  It would have been much more impressive if, rather than “withdraw” after the fact, Louie Giglio had chosen to “decline” in the first place.

Either way, if future opportunities arise, Pastor Louie Giglio’s Christian witness will have a far greater impact if he outright refuses to sanction any secular leader whose personal and political choices flout the Word of God.

 

Please read and support American Thinker a website dedicated to exposing the truth.

%d bloggers like this: