Genesis 1:24 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
‘According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, animals evolved from unicellular eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are cells that contain a clearly defined nucleus. This membrane enables the two stages (coding and decoding) of protein synthesis to be separated. According to the encyclopaedia, this has enabled different types of cell to evolve to do different jobs. However, no mechanism seems to be available whereby the extra information needed for this variety of cells would be created. Plants and fungi are also presumed to have evolved from such eukaryotes, but they both have semi-rigid cell walls. Animal cells do not, and it is this property that evolutionists suppose has led to the wide variety of movements and other abilities peculiar to animals.
At every stage in a supposed evolutionary process there needs to be a spontaneous production of new genetic information. Yet, the only mechanisms seen are the coding and decoding of existing information. Information is copied from DNA to RNA, then transferred in order to construct proteins.
This is why the biblical account of where animals came from is so much more scientific. The Bible refers to animals reproducing after their kind. The biblical kinds of animals comprise those pools of genetic information, outside of which animals do not breed. So all the information needed for every variety of cell and organism was found in the DNA of those kinds as originally created. Information, genetic or otherwise, is not produced by random accidents – it is planned and designed.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/origin-of-animals/?mc_cid=f4a834dfec&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Driscoll's infamous, scrubbed 2007 sex sermon in Edinburgh, Scotland, where commands women to give their husbands oral sex, saying it is sinful not to, and how a man became a Christian after his wife repented of not giving it to him sooner. pic.twitter.com/YtUt0PJDdV
‘It is a harsh but undeniable truth that the majority of what calls itself the Church in the modern world is nothing more than a shallow facade, a shell of its former self. Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest theologians and preachers of the past, had the foresight to recognize this disturbing trend even in his own lifetime. He famously declared, “A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats!”
Tragically, Spurgeon’s prediction has become a reality. As one looks out at the landscape of the contemporary Church, it is nearly impossible to find any semblance of genuine faith or spiritual depth. Instead, one is confronted with an endless parade of superficial and shallow antics, designed to titillate the senses and distract from the emptiness within.
A recent spectacle at the Center for Hope, a United Methodist church in Wintersville, Ohio, where a couple sang a trite and manipulative cover of “Eye of the Tiger,” is just one example of the degradation and degeneration that plagues the modern Church. It is a damning indictment of our spiritual state that we have become so enamored with cheap thrills and vacuous entertainment rather than seeking the nourishment of the soul and the timeless wisdom of the divine through His word.
Below are some of the altered lyrics the couple sang that were overly cheesy and focused on charismatic self-help themes:
Before I was a Christian, Something was missin, felt a little distant, dark resistant, made a decision, got a new vision, wrote my goals yeah wrote my mission, BC I was aimlessly walkin then one day I heard the voice of God talkin, rise up child to the enemy mockin’, prayer is your weapon pray without stoppin’‘https://disntr.com/2023/01/05/church-performs-cringworthy-rap-edition-of-eye-of-the-tiger/
There are a lot of religious teachers I have never heard of and Kevin Young was one of them until now.
‘Kevin Young, an up-and-coming false teacher among Evangeleftists, regularly uses progressive talking points to advocate for radical anti-biblical positions. Young believes that Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction was not related to sodomy but rather due to the lack of hospitality. Such scripture twisting has led to such bad conclusions as the idea that Jesus and Paul were proponents of “Gender Fluidity”.’https://protestia.substack.com/p/evangeleftist-kevin-young-tells-bible
Young lists Cedarville University and Dallas seminary as schools he has attend or graduated from but whether they applaud his teachings or not is not known by this blogger.
From what I have read of his teachings it is best to stay as far away from Kevin Young and his teachings.
2Corinthians 6:11 ¶ O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
All I know is that if there is fraud (cheating) like 2020, whoever runs on the Democrat ticket will win!
Fraudulent ‘President Biden is widely expected to launch his reelection campaign at the start of the next year. While currently, Biden has said that he will take the holidays to consider whether he wants to run for a second term in office, there are many who would not like to see him running again. One Democratic strategist reportedly said that while he “love(s) the guy” he has doubts about whether or not Biden should run again.
Despite his age and low approval ratings, however, Biden, the White House and many in the Democratic Party have maintained that the President is completely certain that he will run for office again. These are some of the reasons that support the theory that Biden would run again.
1. No other Democratic potential candidates
Normally, when the President currently in office is not running for the next presidential election there is chatter as to who could potentially be a candidate. Usually, there are also candidates who start making visits to primary states and testing what the grounds think about them launching a campaign, however, currently there haven’t been any moves about other prospective Democratic candidates.
2. First lady Jill Biden has pointed towards Biden running again
In a conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this month, the first lady reportedly said that they are ready for her husband’s reelection campaign. This could be seen as a direct admission of the plans that Biden has for the upcoming presidential election. Many consider Jill Biden to be the first person that people should look at when considering what Biden’s next move will be, which strongly signals that he will be seeking reelection.’https://www.conservativefreepress.com/2022/12/31/proof-biden-running-again-in-2024/?utm_placement=CFPnewsletter
‘This follow-up is to my recent sub stacks attempting to connect the dots of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their goals for expanding their agenda in order to stick to their timeline regarding the continent of Africa.
I look at things this way when I think about the WEF: hypothetically speaking, if a gang decides to get together once a month with knives and decide under the cover of darkness to go out and slash the tires of every car parked on residential streets of a city, and the next day all the tires of every car parked on those streets have in fact been slashed, you may not be able to prove the gang did it, but if it happens enough you might start to suspect and question what is happening and who is responsible.
After covering this for some time now, I am convinced not only does the WEF consistently tell you what they are going to do, they sure love to prepare in advance/undertake all of these preparations before they implement what they are going to carry out. For example, before COVID-19 and Monkey pox, they prepared for and ran their germ games; then COVID-19 and Monkey pox happened.
We may tend to assume WEFs decisions only center on health or viruses/diseases. Now they appear to be reprioritizing/reassessing their priorities based on policy. With this updated announcement, there are six themes developed in 2022 that have continued to be refined to set the stage for the 2023 conference beginning in less than a month, from 16-20 January:
Theme #1: Ukraine shines a light on importance of global cooperation
Theme #2: Three interconnected crises – climate, food, energy
Theme #3: Don’t use the ‘R’ (recession)word (but it might be coming anyway)
Theme #4: Preparing for the next pandemic requires endinghealth disparities
Theme #5: Gender, inequality and Jobs of Tomorrow
Theme #6: ‘Our future is digital’
Theme #6 is enough of a looming threat because it invokes the rollout of things like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), universal basic income and a social credit system like we are seeing in places like China and India.
But it was Theme #4 that had me shake my head and do a double-take. Ending health disparities…what the heck does that mean?
When I started to read and unpack what Theme #4 was saying and found that it stated right up front “…where just 13% of people are vaccinated (compared to 75% of people in high-income countries)”, I knew they must be mainly talking about Africa. I’ve seen that statistic before, so I guessed Africa right off the bat before reading any further, and I was right. I questioned the 13% metric and wanted to double check it, so based upon a total population in Africa of 1.4 billion, based on this search; 373.1 million Africans have been fully-vaccinated as of December 21, 2022, making the percentage closer to 37%, still a relatively low percentage compared to many developed countries.
FYI: Joshua Phillip also did a nice Crossroads piece on Epoch TV on this topic the other day, and you can catch that here if you missed it.
Then, I saw this this very concerning statement from the WEF announcement under Theme #4:
“Investing in health systems and regional bodies like Africa CDC and African Medicines Agency must be a key priority,” said Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda. “We have to act in the full expectation that there will be another pandemic.”
Rolling out COVID-19 vaccines in Rwanda | WHO | Regional Office for Africa Source: afro.who.int
My goodness, could Africa become the next epicenter, the next Ground-zero of the next pandemic? Is this their intention? Africa has one of the lowest percentages of COVID-19 infection rates and deaths in the world, and perhaps the low vaccination rate could explain why. Is it possible the WEF and corrupt, globalists’ corporations now want to punish Africa for this because they don’t like these statistics? Mostly due to malaria, Africa is also a nation where many have trusted taking repurposed anti-viral drugs to prevent malaria such as Hydroxychloroquine, which has also been distributed widely and is much easier to access relative to the Unites States (after Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright conspired to circumvent both the will of the POTUS and Peter Navarro). Of course, it is highly likely that Hydroxychloroquine is one way Africa has managed to minimize the spread and reduce the number of cases and hospitalizations from the novel Coronavirus
Of course, deaths per million is the final endpoint.
So let’s compare… The United States of America (green line) to Africa (red line). For those that are color blind, the line on the bottom of both charts- with almost no new cases and no deaths- yeh, that is Africa…
It is hard to argue with this chart. How did the “health disparities” between the USA and Africa cause Africa more death or more COVID cases per million (as the WEF claims)? It didn’t. Clearly, it didn’t and it doesn’t take a statistician to see that!
Why would all of this matter? Well, it seems as though the WEF is moving the goalpost and trying to redefine what constitutes a global health crisis, what constitutes improved health equity. This is a recipe for more concentrated socialist health policies forced on the people who live in nations like Africa. The WEF has fairly consistently up until now framed global health crises along the lines of deadly viruses, outbreaks of infectious diseases.
This move would seem like a new virtue signaling tactic to link it to health disparity as a new way to frame a global health crisis. As if to say: if we don’t think your country has enough socialized medicine, we can solve this problem for you. On top of this, Winnie Byanyima, Undersecretary-General of the UN and Executive Director of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), during a recent session on racial equity on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, made this bizarre statement:
“Racism is when black people, brown people, people of colour take their last breath because of policy violence, when they are denied life-saving, pandemic-ending medicines,” she continued, “when they can’t access care or education because debt is choking them.”
She elaborated by what she meant by ‘policy violence’ as being a failure to share COVID-19 vaccines with the Global South as being ‘Racism’. So if you are a corporation, a business, a nation that has not vaccinated enough Africans, by her definition, you are guilty of the crime of policy violence (and by extension, racism).
It’s easy to see why this move is appealing to the WEF: if the WEF can step in and end racial disparity in Africa, they can vaccinate more Africans and achieve their goals in that region.
This background may help to understand why the Biden Administration just last week pledged $55 Billion in aid to Africa over the next three years. President Biden declared that his country is “all in on Africa’s future,” adding, “When Africa succeeds, the United States succeeds.”
This reminds me of the steady stream of money the U.S. keeps printing to send over to Ukraine which is getting harder and harder to trace and show any accountability for. Perhaps out of guilt or shame, both of which play right into this narrative, corporations mentioned in the Biden $55 Billion aid article are now coming out of the woodwork and pledging money for various related globalist projects that will build a framework necessary to target Africa.
There is always plenty of money to go around when the WEF is involved. Therefore, we must continue to monitor what the WEF is doing (and who they are motivating to partner along with them). It is important to pinpoint what does and what does not come true, based on what they tell us they are going to do. Just how far does their influence reach? Are they directly impacting future globalist trends? Is their goal truly“endinghealth disparities” or is it relating to the expansion of a command economy and centralized planning – otherwise known as socialism on a global scale?
The following is probably close to the unbelievable truth as Joe and his minions continue to censor conservatives via Big Tech and use the FBI and DOJ to further their Leftist agenda!
Republicans’ first order of business this coming 118th Congress must be to introduce a legislative firewall between the White House — and its offshoot federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and its offshoot, the FBI — and private social media companies.
The dissemination of news and the facilitation of public discourse is central in any democracy that allows genuine participation on the part of its citizens. Open public dialogue is a “public good”, or something which, like clean air, benefits everyone equally and greatly.
Providers of public goods are generally regulated under common carriage laws. The Communications Act of 1934, for instance, allowed AT&T to enjoy monopolistic power over the public good it provided: the interconnecting of the American people by way of a unified, national standard for telephone communication.
In exchange for enjoying monopoly power, and to ensure that public goods truly remain beneficial to the public, special duties or restraints are generally imposed on such companies.
With companies such as Compuserve and AOL in mind, Congress sought to hand out special liability relief with the idea of promoting two public goods: an internet characterized by a wide dissemination and diversity of ideas; and an incentive system for platforms to create family-friendly environments.
Unfortunately, in the ensuing case law that has been built up in dealing with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, two giant, related problems have emerged, both involving a misreading of a landmark court decision: Zeran v. AOL.
The first problem is that what Congress intended when it comes to protecting social media companies from liability tied to defamatory messages posted on their platforms has been greatly expanded and now encompasses virtually any and all decisions regarding “content moderation”, such as removing the accounts of epidemiologists with whom Dr. Anthony Fauci, the FBI, CIA, and possibly other federal agencies, might disagree.
The second problem is that the “good faith” condition Congress imposed on these companies to ensure against arbitrary or biased content-removal decisions has been completely erased. It is now never applied to social media companies at all.
Both problems can be traced to a misunderstanding and incomplete reading of Zeran v. AOL.
As a result, as Michigan State University law professor and former Commerce Department telecom official Adam Candeub writes, “social media platforms are now treated like they’re above the law.”
Thankfully, this can be easily changed, even at the regulatory level. Non-discrimination policies need not create a “wild west” scenario. To a large extent, people really do not need moderators to curate what they see on social media. They are free to do that themselves.
Removing the distortive “curators”, editors, “fact-checkers” and middlemen from the information process — and reaching people who previously have been sheltered from diverse opinions — will likely not tear people apart. It might even help to bridge misunderstandings and fill in a few gaps. That, perhaps, is the ultimate public good.https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19261/big-tech-censorship
‘Last year, the VSRF produced the first explanation of the consortium behind the unprecedented Corporate Media and Big Tech censorship surrounding COVID, elections, and any topic that the countered the government narrative.
We review the latest news like these stories and host special guests each Thursday at 7pm EST on the VSRF Weekly Update with Founder Steve Kirsch. Join us! Register: https://www.VacSafety.org
The VSRF’s mission is to advance COVID-19 vaccine safety through scientific research, public education, and advocacy, and to support the vaccine injured. https://www.vacsafety.org/‘
whatyareckon 