C4

Michael Brown is quite upset that Sojourners head Jim Wallis now supports marriage equality, and in a column for Charisma yesterday accused Wallis of “apostasy” and taking the “path to spiritual and moral suicide.” “Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity,” Brown writes, “you will need to humble yourself and repent.”

Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.

You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?

…

Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?

…

What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?

You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.

Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.

Liberty University professor Judith Reisman is out with a column in WorldNetDaily today which seems to blame homosexuality on “erototoxins,” or mind-altering chemicals, which she believes are emitted from pornography.

She points to a lecture which called pornography a “visual pheromone” to argue that sex-ed rewires the brain and consequently promotes homosexuality.

Reisman points to a case where pheromones were used to confuse male gypsy moths in order to prevent them from mating with females, which is apparently like how pornography could be confusing men and making them less attracted to women, or something.

On Sept. 21, 2012, Texas neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton Jr., M.D., spoke on pornography addiction and sexual orientation, saying:

“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality even more rapidly through the cyber-acceleration of the Internet. It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.” (emphasis added)

Hilton’s lecture, “Changing the Stamp of Nature: Pornography Addiction, Neuroplasticity, and the ASAM and DSM Perspectives,” put a hard neuroscience face on pornographic brain rewiring, implicating sex-education promotions of homosexuality as a normal genetic variation.

…

Pornography, homosexuality and the gypsy moth Hilton agrees, “Pornography is inducing a cultural pheromonic effect,” recording the mis-orientation of male gypsy moths.

In 1869 gypsy moths, imported to create an American silk industry, instead decimated our deciduous trees – oaks, maples and elms – and devastated our forests for the next 150 years. In the ’60s scientists found male moths mate with the female “by following her scent,” her “pheromone.”

A 1967 paper, “Insect population control by the use of sex pheromones to inhibit orientation between the sexes,” reported that scientists permeated the moth’s environment with strong, artificial female moth pheromone “This … scent overpowered the normal females ability to attract the male, and the confused males were unable to find the females.”

So, our trees got saved by what could be called olfactory moth pornography, a heavy-duty phony scent that unmanned male orientation to create an impotent moth population.

Hilton reports this abstract of the paper: “We have for the first time obtained experimental confirmation that pre-mating communication between the sexes can be disrupted by permeating the atmosphere with an insect pheromone.”

In 1972 another paper described mating disorientation as “preventing male gypsy moths from finding mates,” using pheromones. Called the confusion method:

“An airplane scatters … pellets imbedded with the scent of the pheromone … [that] overpower the male’s ability to find the female. He is thus desensitized to the natural scent of the female by this artificially produced pheromone. … The male either becomes confused and doesn’t know which direction to turn for the female, or he becomes desensitized to the lower levels of pheromones naturally given out by the female and has no incentive to mate with her.” (emphasis added)

Gypsy moth pornography? In the trapping method, male moths looking for the female, enter traps with no exit “only to find a fatal substitute.” As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Hilton concludes:

“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality. … It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.”

So can Cynipidae desensitization tell us genius humanoids about pornographic mating desensitization, say, about pornography as Erototoxic, as the toxic form of Eros? Gosh.

In an email to members today, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips claimed that the Boston marathon bombing occurred because “we have a government that is not committed to protecting America” since it isn’t willing to “destroy radical Islam.” Phillips said that “Radical Islam and perhaps even non-radical Islam” is a danger to western civilization, arguing that Muslims believe that “non-Islamic nations may be conquered or otherwise taken over.”

Unfortunately the sad truth is we will be hit again. It will happen sooner or later. It will probably be sooner than later.

There are two reasons why we will be hit again. First, we have a determined enemy who hates us. Second, we have a government that is not committed to protecting America.

It is a pretty safe bet right now that this attack was carried out by an Islamist. It was a well-coordinated attack. In its publication, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called for just this kind of attack.

While the government and media have fallen all over themselves to downplay this fact, there is a twenty-year-old Saudi student being detained as a “person of interest.” Person of interest in a nice police term that is used for someone who is not under arrest and therefore does not have to be read his Miranda rights and who hopefully will not lawyer up.

Barack Obama could not force himself to use the word “terrorism” in his speech last night and the FBI right now won’t call this a terrorist incident.

…

The reason we will be hit again is because our government is not committed to destroying our enemy. Radical Islam is our enemy.

Some in the far end of the Liberty Movement will start screaming about war mongering “Neo-cons.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

…

We need to first recognize our enemy and then come up with a strategy to destroy them. This is an ideological war. While sometimes that will mean guns and bombs, neither will destroy an ideology.

The values of the west, most of them good, some of them not so good are what will destroy radical Islam. In the west, we fall all over ourselves not to insult Islam.

Why?

We can go down the list of things Islam has done to the west. During the height of the Cold War, the Soviets came up with something called the Brezhnev doctrine. It said, “What’s ours is ours. What is yours is negotiable.” Radical Islam and perhaps even non-radical Islam holds to the same belief.

They believe that once a nation becomes Islamic it cannot have Islam removed from it. However, non-Islamic nations may be conquered or otherwise taken over.

Reagan knew that America had to stand up to the Communist threat. Bill Clinton wanted to ignore the Islamist threat. George W. Bush just wanted to hold the hand of the Saudi king and Barack Obama just wants to bow to him. As we mourn the victims of Boston, we need to make a solemn vow that we will not allow this to happen again.

The only way we make sure this never happens again is to identify our enemy and then craft a strategy to totally defeat that enemy.

Last week, Rick Wiles of TruNews hosted Dr. Preston Bailey of the Spiritual Warfare Center to discuss how the “New World Order” is trying to restore the “Luciferian government” that existed before Noah’s Flood and will accelerate the End Times.

After asking if President Obama, whom Wiles believes is literally a demon, is of the Illuminati’s bloodline, Bailey responded that he is not, at least according to his Illuminati “source.”

But don’t be disappointed just yet.

Bailey told Wiles that the Illuminati consider Obama to be the “forerunner of the Antichrist” (which we always thought was Oprah Winfrey) and that there is an Illuminati member who may be in the White House soon enough: Hillary Clinton.

Wiles: Lucifer ran this world and that is what they are seeking to bring back in the Last Days, that is the world government, that is the last beast, that is the fourth beast that is coming, it is a resurrection of the pre-Flood Luciferian government and the Illuminati is the bloodline that exists today with the assignment to bring about the resurrection of this pre-Flood Luciferian government.

Bailey: That is exactly what they’re doing; now the New World Order, so the head of the New World Order — there are many organizations — but the head of it is the Illuminati.

…

Bailey: You’re born into the Illuminati so if you hear these people who claim ‘well I joined the Illuminati and blah blah blah’ well they’re lying, that’s just not true, they have delusions of grandeur.

Wiles: Do you think Barack Hussein Obama is part of the bloodline?

Bailey: No he’s not; I’ve asked specifically. He is called the ‘Forerunner of the Antichrist.’ But Hillary [Clinton] is in the Illuminati.

James Simpson, writing in a column for Accuracy In Media, is warning his fellow conservatives not to work with progressives on crafting a comprehensive immigration reform plan, which he believes is part of a Marxist push to destroy America and potentially make President Obama a dictator.

He writes that an “illegal alien amnesty” simply “cannot happen again, unless we are all willing to start calling Obama ‘President for Life,’ and Democrats, the ‘Commissars.’”

He goes on to accuse the “illegal immigration lobby” of using the tactics of Nazis and Communists in promoting “ideas that are self-evidently destructive,” and says that there is no room to compromise with the left and reform proponents because they are Marxists who will only be “emboldened” to push for further changes.

“When dealing with Marxists, the “moderates” compromise away our rights, our livelihoods and our country to people and agendas that are inherently destructive to our society,” Simpson warns. “As Congress goes with amnesty, so goes the nation.”

As we once again face the specter of illegal alien amnesty, and the permanent Democratic majority it will guarantee, it is critical to understand how the Left plays. They are unethical to the core, but we are so frequently deluded by their tactical use of language and emotion, that we are unequipped to deal with them effectively. The result: they win. This cannot happen again, unless we are all willing to start calling Obama “President for Life,” and Democrats, the “Commissars.”

…

Our nation’s laws constitute a contract that every citizen implicitly agrees to respect. Those who violate it face sanctions of corresponding severity. If certain individuals can avoid sanction and gain special privilege through political power—despite their blatant violations—then the rule of law becomes meaningless, and is replaced by a society based on political power alone. That is called dictatorship. Yet this is what the illegal immigration lobby wants us to accept.

When individuals or organizations attempt to introduce ideas that are self-evidently destructive, like Nazism or communism, for example, a campaign based on propaganda is necessary. Unlike factual information, propaganda manipulates, using fear and instinct in combination with known psychological reactions. It is evident that the illegal alien lobby uses these methods.

…

The illegal alien lobby, like most well-trained leftist movements, follows a multi-tiered offensive strategy. This includes in-your-face agitation, public demonstrations, vilification of opponents, direct threats, aggressive legal tactics (i.e., suing and threats of suits) and massive, coordinated legislative assaults. These in turn all reflect their application of the Dialectic:

Thesis—For the illegal alien lobby, the “thesis” is the deliberately provocative proposition that illegals are only “undocumented,” or of a certain “perceived immigration status,” or, using Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s terminology, merely “New Americans.” As such, they should be granted all the privileges of citizenship and more.

Antithesis—The “Antithesis” is our collective outrage at such an overtly fraudulent notion. It is the natural and anticipated backlash—in Lenin’s words, the “forces of reaction” which set us up for more outrages, as the Marxists respond even more forcefully to our “injustice,” our “racism.” Such “reaction” is only to be expected of “Imperialists.”

Synthesis— “Synthesis” is the marriage of compromises wherein “cooler heads prevail.” This standard Marxist tactic relies on the natural human tendency to compromise in the face of conflict.

Under normal circumstances, this might be described as a simple way to model the give-and-take of the usual negotiation process, but there is nothing usual about it when dealing with Marxists. The compromise always comes from our side, because the Marxists start from the preposterous position that people who deliberately, flagrantly violate our laws should not be singled out for any kind of consideration other than jail or extradition. Exceptions are already provided in law for those refugees or asylum seekers who come to America under genuine duress, but even these programs have been horribly abused by the open-borders lobby.

Yet even in the case of radical ideas like amnesty or in-state tuition for illegals, over time, common ground between the opponents is found, as the radicals repeatedly pound away at elected officials with the same proposals while their street operation gets ever more strident, threatening and demanding. Meanwhile, those less scrupulous politicians who see gain in supporting such groups are emboldened, especially if the media put a compassionate spin on the group in question. Eventually, politicians give in, finding some pretext like requiring military service, or paying fines or back taxes.

Using this method, the Marxists usually get more than they bargained for, despite the fact that their demands have no legitimacy whatever. Furthermore, it never stops. Once one “right” has been established, new ones are dreamed up until there is nothing left to give. Recall the quote from MALDEF’s Obledo: “Eventually we will take over all the political institutions of California.” He means it. When dealing with Marxists, the “moderates” compromise away our rights, our livelihoods and our country to people and agendas that are inherently destructive to our society.

This is a fight we cannot afford to lose. As Congress goes with amnesty, so goes the nation.

Fox News commentator Todd Starnes has taken it in upon himself to chronicle what he sees as an “attack on Christianity” within the military under the Obama administration. So far, the main evidence he’s turned up is an email sent by an Army officer about anti-gay groups and an unauthorized slide in a training presentation listing Christianity as a possible source of religious extremism. These, however, are enough for Starnes to conclude that, as he put it to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins yesterday, “politically correct Obama administration officials” are conducting a “sort of religious cleansing of the military”

Starnes told Perkins that his concerns are shared by Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who believes “there is an anti-Christian movement afoot at the Pentagon.”

Starnes: It should be shocking and surprising, but unfortunately, for me it’s not, because I’ve been covering this attack on Christianity that’s within the ranks of the military, not just the Army, since President Obama was inaugurated. And we have seen an onslaught of attacks, the sort of religious cleansing of the military at the hands of these politically correct Obama administration officials operating out of the Pentagon.

...

Perkins: This is a fundamental, this is our first freedom. We cannot lose it, we must defend it with our abilities through the political process. That’s how we do that. Todd, what’s the next step on this? What do you think is going to happen next?

Starnes: I think we are going to see some movement on Capitol Hill. We’ve got some lawmakers that are very upset. Congressman Steve King out of Iowa, I had a chance to talk to him, and he believes there is an anti-Christian movement afoot at the Pentagon. And I think we are going to see more people standing in the gap for our fighting men and women. These are folks putting their lives on the line so that we might have religious liberty, and their religious liberty is being denied? It’s just unconscionable.
 

WorldNetDaily always has a rather interesting way of interpreting President Obama’s speeches. For instance, WND’s “forensic profiler” Andrew Hodges recently revealed that an offhand joke the president made contained secret clues about his plan to impose martial law.

Hodges is back in WND today, telling reporter Bob Unruh that the president’s statement that the government is not planning to seize firearms is actually a “wink-wink” confirmation of a mass confiscation plan.

According to Hodges, if Obama denies that he is going to do something like confiscate guns, that means he is going to do the opposite: “Read his condescending denial as a warning of the possibility one day the government’s coming for our guns.”

“We always contemplate denial as a revelation of the real truth,” Hodges said. “Ask yourself, if he carried out an illegal presidency and participated in election fraud what would he be capable of when it came to gun control?”

Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” explained in an analysis of the president’s statements for WND that Obama’s words suggest the unconscious message that “one day the government’s coming for our guns.”

Hodges previously said Obama’s statement “I am not a dictator” actually meant, “I am the dictator president,” and concluded Obama unconsciously confessed to stealing the 2012 election.

…

Hodges wrote that Obama denies any reason to worry about the government “but we must keep in mind that denial attached to an idea can tell us to keep an eye on that particular idea and consider deception. Denying the very plan he secretly has in mind. For this reason we always contemplate denial as a revelation of the real truth with the cover-up, ‘Let me tell you what I’m not going to do – ‘wink-wink.”

“Obama follows with a second comment of denial and ridicule, ‘(you hear) we can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ Again read his condescending denial as a warning of the possibility one day the government’s coming for our guns,” he wrote.

…

The proflier [sic] said, “Obama’s repetitive denial tells us what’s on his mind deep down: total gun control. While he could not get away with such a plan now we must ‘know our opponent’ – to whom we must stick closer than a friend. Understand Obama has a deep need stemming from his powerless background to take power away from others.”

Hodges also points out how Obama’s statements suggest he considers himself “the government.”

“Obama dramatically assures us in another full-fledged denial of exactly why citizens have no cause for worry about extreme gun control – because ‘the government’s us.’ Stop here. What comes to mind? Think back quickly to his recent sequester press conference on March 1 when he presented such images as ‘dictator…president,’ ‘apocalypse,’ ‘Jedi ‘mind-meld’ trick,” and having ‘the Secret Service block the door’ to Republicans. One image after another of government control,” Hodges wrote. “Now read the message ‘the government’s us’ as the ‘government is me, Barack Obama.’

“Such declarations are utterly frightening when paired with his previous spontaneous image in the sequester speech of ‘horns on his head.’”

And Obama’s references to officials who are elected suggests “a denial of his belief in the Constitution, a central reason our forefathers put the Second Amendment in the foundation document,” Hodges said.

…

“Ask yourself if he carried out an illegal presidency and participated in election fraud what would he be capable of when it came to gun control?” Hodges wrote.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) followed Dave Agema on Washington Watch yesterday, where he told host Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that marriage is “not a civil liberty” but an institution that same-sex couples should not be allowed to participate in.

After agreeing with Perkins’ claim that marriage equality “is about fundamentally redefining America,” Stutzman mentioned the benefits of marriage for heterosexual couples as reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.

Later in the show, he warned that religious freedom “is being chipped away at” by gay rights laws, warning that “if we lose that we’re going to see grave consequences to the family unit.”

Perkins: This is about fundamentally redefining America.

Stutzman: That’s exactly right. This is the one issue that as we talk about states’ rights, states’ responsibilities, which according to the Constitution what responsibilities are for the states and which are for the federal government, I think this is the one issue that you’ll even find that if states deal with it themselves that with a very mobile society as people move around the country if you have states that do recognize same-sex marriage and other states that don’t there’s going to be a series of consequences that are going to result because you may have one state in the east coast that recognizes same-sex marriages, if they move to the Midwest, a state like Indiana or Mississippi or other states that don’t, you’re going to have a patchwork quilt of laws.

This is not about marriage, it’s not a civil liberty, it’s an institution, it’s above, it’s something that God has created and is a cornerstone of civil society. It’s vitally important that we protect marriage as something unique, something that is to be protected because of all of the other benefits of the family unit together, all of those things that come with marriage and a family unit, whether it is mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally, all of those things are tied up in this institution that God has created in marriage.

…

Stutzman: Your listeners, people across the country are vocal about this and are engaged in local government, state government and federal government about that religious freedom that we have enjoyed for so many years and that is being chipped away at. I think that if we don’t stand up and speak up and speak out about this important issue, if we lose that we’re going to see grave consequences to the family unit. If we have strong families we will have strong communities, we will have a stronger nation as a whole because we’re going to have that basic unit that God created first.

Perkins: But if we lose that right I don’t know that we’ll regain it so that’s why I think we’ve got to exercise it, speak up and protect it now while we have the chance.

Stutzman: That’s right.

Tony Perkins hosted embattled Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema yesterday on Washington Watch to defend his anti-gay Facebook posts that cited, among others, Holocaust denier Frank Joseph and Paul Cameron, an extremist and activist who poses as a researcher.

Agema told Perkins that the church should help gays and lesbians “get out of” their “lifestyle,” and tell them “about all the diseases you get, how it gets you into drugs, gets you into all these other things that you don’t want to be in.”

He said gay people should be treated no differently than alcoholics: “if you saw your friend for example dying of alcoholism would you just stand quietly by and watch it happen? Or would you speak up and say hey I want to help you.”

Agema lamented that wealthy and powerful gay activists are suppressing the facts and making the truth-tellers “shut up,” to which Perkins agreed and added that homosexuality is “personally destructive and harmful to the society as well.”

Agema: There’s definitely hate, they call you every name in the book. What I’d like to have the homosexual community know is I don’t hate them, as a matter of fact when Jesus caught the woman in the act of adultery when they brought her to him he said I don’t condemn you but go and sin don’t more. That ought to be the church’s goal here. We ought to be saying to these people: hey, we don’t agree with your lifestyle and we’ll help you get out of it, but we want you to know the facts of what’s going to happen to you if you stay in this lifestyle.

Study after study after study talks about all the diseases you get, how it gets you into drugs, gets you into all these other things that you don’t want to be in. So if you really love someone, if you really were concerned about someone, if you saw your friend for example dying of alcoholism would you just stand quietly by and watch it happen? Or would you speak up and say hey I want to help you. That’s what we should be doing. But the problem is the homosexual community is very organized, they got a lot of money behind them, as a matter of fact the average homosexual makes more than the average person does, has better education and they are very good at shutting anybody down and embarrassing him so they will shut up. So when this happened to me this time just like when it happened to me before I thought, I’m not going to keep quiet on them. It’s starting to backfire on them.

Perkins: I could not agree with you more. I think probably the most profound display of hate would be silence in the face of people making choices that are personally destructive and harmful to the society as well. I want to thank you for standing up because you are absolutely right, a lot of people have self-censored themselves because of the intimidation, they’ve simply backed away and said I don’t want people saying that stuff about me because that’s not who I am, and we’re not haters.

The Republican leader argued that marriage equality and LGBT-inclusive curriculum in school may eventually turn kids gay and make parents and churches victims of hate crime laws. He called on schools to teach kids that gay people “live twenty years less than the average person” and tell gay students about “all the diseases you’re going to contract.”

Perkins also told Agema that he agreed with his Facebook post and is only in trouble for “presenting the truth.”

Agema: I think what the people have to know is if this passes, what will happen is it is just a progression of events that will occur. First of all, what will happen to your school kids when they are in school, it’s already being taught in a lot of places that it is an accepted lifestyle. Then the next thing that will occur is your kids will come home and say I think this is a good thing and I think I want to be one, and if you as a parent stand up and say this is against my moral beliefs and my biblical beliefs, then the next thing you’re going to get into is hate crimes because you’re speaking against something that’s been sanctioned by the state. If you look at Denmark and others then the state also tells the churches you have to marry homosexuals and if you don’t what may happen in the United States is you might lose your tax exempt status.

So this all blew up and so I made a web page here listing several other studies that show the harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle. Just imagine this, if our kids are in school instead of being told that this is an acceptable and OK lifestyle we are actually briefed and taught the ramifications of this lifestyle, that you’re going to live twenty years less than the average person, you are going to die younger and here’s all the diseases you’re going to contract, there’d be a totally different philosophy here instead of basically telling the kids that this is good. So I think we got to go into this with our eyes wide open and what the 2 or 3 percent of homosexuals what they are doing in the United States today is trying to get the courts to do what they can’t get the individual states to do, and that’s dictate that all states will accept homosexual marriage.

Perkins: I’m joined by Dave Agema; he is the Republican National Committeeman from the state of Michigan. We’re talking about a post that he put on his Facebook page citing facts, statistics regarding the homosexual lifestyle during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. What is troubling to me is that your post has been called a form of hate but simply what you are doing is having a conversation presenting the truth. These are documented facts. I looked at what you put up there and some of it is the same information we have on our website, some of it comes from the CDC, comes from other medical sources, it’s all footnoted, there’s nothing hate in here it is just talking about the facts. This is troubling that you can’t even have a conversation about what’s in the best interest of our society without being a bigot or a hater.

Agema: That’s exactly how they get you to shut up.