Thankfully Obama and his Muslim Marxist buddies are out of office; But are they?
truth
All posts tagged truth
The humble ice cream man has gotten into the so-called same sex marriage lie. I do not believe they are correct but the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Company in Australia say that ‘In Australia, 72% of the population supports Marriage Equality, so why haven’t our leaders acted? Before the next parliamentary sitting on June 13th, it is time to stand up for fair and equal rights for all by letting our leaders know that we demand Marriage Equality!
Imagine heading down to your local Scoop Shop to order your favourite two scoops of Cookie Dough in a waffle cone. But you find out you are not allowed – Ben & Jerry’s has banned two scoops of the same flavour. You’d be furious! Don’t live near a scoop shop – no problem! You can sign up through the Equality Campaign’s website here.
But this doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love. So we are banning two scoops of the same flavor and encouraging our fans to contact their MPs to tell them that the time has come – make marriage equality legal! Love comes in all flavours!’ http://www.benandjerry.com.au/whats-new/l
Two scoops of Vanilla, please!
What is it, if you tell a lie long enough people will believe it? The theory of Evolution has proven that true so now it is the LBGTIAUVWK crowd’s turn.
Andrew Bolt wrote ‘Westpac, freaked by green activists, says it won’t invest in mines in new coal regions to save the world from global warming.
But what hypocrites:
WESTPAC … a worse greenhouse gas polluter than some of Australia’s biggest manufacturers.
The bank released its latest climate change action plan on Friday, ruling out finance for mines in new coal regions such as the giant Carmichael project planned by Adani for central Queensland’s Galilee Basin…
Official figures reported to the federal Clean Energy Regulator show carbon dioxide emissions related to the bank’s operations totalled 148,723 tonnes in 2015-16, equivalent to 29,000 cars.
Most of it is indirect pollution from energy used to run massive data centres. That is the highest level of any of the country’s big four banks – 45 per cent more than the Commonwealth.
But it also overshadows manufacturing companies such as Arnott’s Biscuits, brewer Foster’s, frozen food producer McCain, dairy giant Parmalat Australia and even carmaker General Motors.
Westpac was responsible for more emissions than fast food chain McDonald’s and infrastructure operations including Gladstone Ports and the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal near Mackay.
Westpac has just proved that motly activists prepared to crash its parties can have a massive effect. It has now set itself up for further blackmail. What next? No investment in gas? Cancelling the back accounts of people who work in uranium mining? Banning finance for fatty foods?
Westpac has just declared it will not invest in money making things if activists claim (faslely) they are a sin. Is our future safe when a bank bans investment in projects that create jobs and revenue? Is the bank itself a good investment when it puts scare campaigns above reason?
Resources Minister Matt Canavan tries some pressure of his own:
Senator Canavan has called for a customer boycott of the bank.
“Apparently, everyone else should cut emissions but them,” he said.’
‘Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering
imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.
Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or insulted by those who publicly defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.
Labor’s 
proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.
Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.
In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor government hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.
When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.
“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.
“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”
When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”
Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.’ http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/
There is always a price to be paid for standing for truth!
‘No government entity has the authority to license, commission, accredit, and certify any Christian ministry–unless said groups go hat in hand asking for state or federal funds. A license is permission to do what would be illegal without it. No preacher should ever permit the government to license his work. Even in other professions, a license does not guarantee quality but does provide control and income for the government. In some states, a license is required to use your truck to haul dirt, rocks, etc.; to shampoo hair in a beauty shop; to own a gun; to teach school, and on and on and on.
It is obvious that a medical doctor’s license does not protect patients from sexual abuse or unnecessary medical procedures; nor protect students from incompetent or predatory teachers; nor guarantee a reasonable-looking haircut from barbers; nor assure a fair, reasonable defense by attorneys; nor, but then you get the idea.
In the mid-400s, Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Emperor from 408 to 450, made it a punitive offense for a man to teach the public without a state license; and soon such licenses were given only to “Christians.” Now that the Church was in control, they decided to keep the unbelievers out of teaching by requiring permission from the church-controlled government.
As early as 1534, the English clergy were forbidden to preach without a government license and John Bunyan got caught up in government machinery that tried to control preachers and teachers.
John Bunyan has been one of my major heroes all my adult life. But, I recently discovered that 
John, after spending more than 12 years in jail for preaching the Gospel, finally accepted a license to preach! While that was wrong in my opinion, it does not diminish Bunyan’s courageous stand against King Charles II and the king’s demand that John and other dissidents (those who disagree) not preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was very costly to all except the Church of England preachers and even they did not have total freedom of conscience since they had to obey the King and Parliament regarding religious matters.
In the seventeenth century, all religious groups hated the Roman Catholics who like all dissidents met in homes. Everyone in England and Europe remembered the Inquisition where “the papists” mangled, mauled, and murdered hundreds of thousands of “heretics.” All the dissidents and the Church of England preachers agreed–“No popery, no popery!” Of course, everyone should have had freedom of conscience–Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the religious weirdos. Moreover, all the groups were against the Baptists because of their insistence on baptism by emersion of only those who had trusted Christ as Savior. No babies under any circumstance.
King Charles I had feuded, fussed, and fought with Parliament and ended up being beheaded in 1649 followed by Oliver Cromwell becoming Lord Protector until his death in 1658. Although a strict Puritan, Cromwell provided religious freedom for everyone. Into this religious mix, mess, and maelstrom walked two men who would make their mark on English history–a preacher and a king.
When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, he reneged on his promise of religious freedom he had made in his Declaration of Breda a few weeks earlier (a mistake I hope Trump does not make). The people had experienced about twenty years of freedom of worship but now nonconformist (Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent, etc.) services were banned, and ministers were rounded up and arrested. The major hero in this religious mix was a born-again tinker, a Baptist preacher named John Bunyan. The resultant clash was titanic.
Soon after his conversion, Bunyan began preaching in 1655 and was arrested in 1660 while preaching in an unapproved religious meeting (conventicle). He served a prison stretch until 1672 when he was released with other dissidents. He was jailed again for a few months in 1675.
The Act of Uniformity 1662 required every preacher to adhere to and accept the doctrine of the Church of England or leave the country. That included all preachers of the Church of England (many of them Puritans) and all the various independent groups. Everyone had to attend the Church of England regularly with fines, banishment, and then hanging for a third offense. (That would sure help one decide whether or not to sleep in on Sunday morning!) The act required all clergymen to use the Book of Common Prayer; consequently, about 2,000 Puritan clergymen were forced to resign. Some of them recanted while others became dissident preachers, others got other employment.
As to unbiblical ceremonies in the Church of England, Puritans (and all dissidents) objected to kneeling during the Lord’s Supper, the observation of holy days, the use of the surplice (outer garment worn by priests), and the signing of the cross in baptism.
The noose got tighter when the Conventicle Act 1664 became law forbidding more than five people, not members of the same family, to meet for worship. This was followed the next year by the Five Mile Act that forbade any preacher from coming within five miles of any incorporated town or their former place of abode. The noose was now tight and the preachers were standing on a very fragile, shaky platform.
The Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other dissidents from the Church of England continued to meet surreptitiously in homes, barns, and abandoned buildings while the Quakers very bravely continued to meet openly. This was a time of persecution without parallel as Protestants (Anglicans) persecuted Protestants (Puritans and dissidents).
However, Charles and the Anglicans did not have it easy in hounding, hunting, and harassing the dissidents. In 1668, the Bawdy House Riots proved that sane citizens recognized the insanity of persecution of decent people. London crowds attacked brothels as they protested against a government which had tolerated prostitution while persecuting devout, principled preachers!
Present day parallels are numerous as the state asserts its authority to control religious colleges, license Christian counsellors, certify Christian teachers, regulate school curriculum, prohibit anti-homosexual regulations, restrict military chaplains, etc.
The modern state is as arrogant, asinine, and aggressive as King Charles II was and it’s time for principled Christians to resist to the point of jail.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/government-cannot-license-a-ministry-john-bunyan-was-wrong
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on 
modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be 
superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men
can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com
Genesis 1:26,27 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’
Why all this recent gender questioning? Could it be open rebellion against the Creator God? What will be the result of all this gender changing in twenty or less years? God’s answer to all one’s burdens is in Matthew 11:28-30 ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light’ and accepting the truth of Psalm 139:14 ‘I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.’
