Protestant and Catholic leaders overwhelmingly support illegal immigration

by Don Hank

 I recently sent out an email blaming misguided “Christians” for supporting illegal immigration. I said that just as a falling away of the churches in Germany helped usher in the Third Reich and just as unbiblical “Christian” churches in Europe support Islamization, so “Christian” churches preach a pro-invasion social gospel alien to Christ’s message, that has weakened our national borders, introduced criminals, drug dealers, foreign workers who raise unemployment levels and a whole host of social ills in America. I received feedback from one conservative claiming illegal immigration is all the Democrats’ fault and that Christian churches have nothing to do with it.

So I went to the web sites of the churches themselves and here is what I found in about 1/2 hour:

United Methodist (against CA Prop 187):

Southern Baptist top leader Richard Land supported Bush amnesty bill:

Catholic leaders urge disobedience of anti-invasion law:,2933,187209,00.html

Presbyterians support Obama’s (previously Bush’s) “comprehensive immigration reform”: 

and some of their “leaders” recommend an ACLU publication on immigration



“An evangelical Christian herself, she’s watched as Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist and Jewish clergy converged on Capitol Hill, lobbying legislators to grant illegal residents permanent status.”

Baptists and other Protestants protest AZ anti-invasion law:

NAE Resolution:

“That the government establish a sound, equitable process toward earned legal status for currently undocumented immigrants, who desire to embrace the responsibilities and privileges that accompany citizenship.”

But I urge you to do your own research, like I did. Go to Google and type in

<name of denomination> illegal immigration

and you will find out that there are probably almost no major denominations that strongly oppose illegal immigration any more.

Yet the majority of Americans do oppose illegal immigration and the majority of us describe ourselves as Christians.

As a result, just as more and more conservative Christians are eschewing public schools and the mainstream political parties, many are abandoning American churches as well, meeting in homes instead, in less formal settings to avoid the secularization and political correctness of mainstream churches. I suspect there may be regions in the US where there is no church within 100 miles that has not succumbed to Marxist-progressive influences. In those cases, Christians may have only the home church as a last recourse.

Failing to find a suitable church home, consider this option prayerfully.

Did Paul mean “homosexual” or “man ogler”?

by Don Hank

This will be of particular interest to theologians and linguists but it is in fact a debunking of a biblical misinterpretation that is relevant to all of us.

The “gay” agenda has been trying hard to make the Apostle Paul unsay what, according to most translations, he said about homosexuality. One Greek “scholar” has written that the word he used in Corinthians did not mean homosexual at all.

The verse in question is I Cor. 6:9 and the disputed term is arsenokoitai (plural of aresnokoitis). There is no dispute over the rest of the verse.

I found aresnokoitis in my Ancient Greek dictionary “The Classic Greek Dictionary” (Follet, 1948) and the puritanical definition given there is “one guilty of unnatural offenses.” This is homosexual in Prudish and is based on the fact that arseno- meant male (still does in modern GR) and koitos meant “lying (eg, in bed).” The context in Paul’s letter and his remarks on homosexuality elsewhere are clear evidence that he did really mean homosexual.

The translations of Paul’s word here is usually “Sodomite” or “homosexual” in today’s Bibles but “gay” lobbyists are keen on changing that translation and have even sued at least one Bible publisher for using it.

The “gay” lobby has been tampering with this interpretation for so many years that even modern native Greek people often believe (thanks, I surmise, to their international effort to revise the scriptures) that, although the word has survived today and means “homosexual,” it originally supposedly meant “a man who looks at other men” and some are saying that this was once illegal so Paul was just condemning the practice of men looking at other men — man oglers, one might say.

However, there are several reports in the NT of Jesus having looked at men, such as Simon Peter. So that holds no water.

They are basing this mostly on the fact that the stem of the –koitos part is from the verb koitazo, which in Modern Greek means “to look.”

The problem is that, while koitazo means “to look” in modern Greek, in Ancient Greek, koitazo meant “to lie (eg, in bed)” or “to lie down,” as you Bible scholars may know, so this explanation is nonsense.

Even if arsenokoitis did not mean homosexual, there are other passages, such as in Romans 1, that clearly show the early Christians condemned the practice.

Nonetheless, there are many places in the Western world where it is now considered illegal for pastors to preach from those parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior, and this misinterpretation of arsenokoitis is one of the reasons for that ban.

Is the world going Greek?

Is the world going Greek?

By Don Hank

It occurred to me as I was reading about the violence in Greece, where bank employees were murdered, that once this entitlement mentality is ingrained in people by the socialists/progressives, it is almost too late to do anything about it. They will riot and harm people once the money runs out, and it may not be the ones responsible for their poverty. It will most likely be the traditional scapegoat, the bankers (and other white “rich”) who did it right and lent only to people who they knew could repay the loans. Of course, that kind of banker is getting scarce.

We must watch Greece to see how things play out.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who put up a fuss earlier, has now caved to pressure and seems willing to give her countrymen’s money to that grossly irresponsible country, but that could trigger demands for bailouts from Spain and Italy, and maybe some of the other PIIGS nations.

What with the Germans already protesting vigorously (Merkel was booed recently while defending the bailout plan), there is no telling how this will end – even though Merkel says this is the last time. Many German “conservatives” aren’t like our Tea Party types. Their education system has been in full dumb-down mode for longer than ours. Many haven’t a clue and may look to their traditional scapegoats, the Jews, sorry to say (I often see the chatter on this).

But there but for a few months or years go we. Barring a miracle. Our stock market took a big dip lately thanks to worries over Greece.

 The Dave Levine Show:

Considering that Dave Levine has only one show a week, he really makes a gala affair of it.

One thing I like about Dave’s show is that, around election time, he goes out of his way to find candidates who are real true blue conservatives.

Who is real and who is faking, that is exactly what you and I need to know.

This week he has the “Oklahoma Firecracker” lined up for us. Here is Dave’s release:


SPECIAL GUEST on The Dave Levine Show Saturday 5/8/10, 2 PM Pacific/3 PM Mountain/4 PM Central/5 PM Eastern: Conservative Candidate for Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District, Miki Booth (dubbed “The Oklahoma Firecracker” by WND’s Chelsea Schilling) who is running against Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Dan Boren who tends to vote with Obama. Hear the Show at

Scroll down and see “Additional Radio Feeds Here” and click one of the three choices. The Show will then play.

The replays are Sunday mornings at 8 AM Pacific/9 AM Mountain/10 AM Central/11 AM Eastern.

Miki Booth’s Campaign website is

An excellent interview of Miki on March 6, 2010 by Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email can be seen at
(Republished with permission of The Post & Email)

Miki is a Constitutional conservative activist and is very involved in the Birther movement which is growing exponentially as Obama’s already spent 2 million dollars via lawyers to stop the truth from getting out.

Is a Christian nation always a theocracy?

By Don Hank

Many of us – myself included – got our wish when Scott Brown was elected. We thought that would save America from Obamacare. As things turned out, it gave us one more pro-abortion false conservative who now talks more and more like an open-borders amnesty advocate (many voted for him thinking he was pro law and order). Where did we go wrong, Friends?

Well, most conservatives pay a little lip service to the spiritual side of social, economic and political problems.

On the other hand, some conservatives think the spiritual component is not just part of the equation, but is in fact the overarching component without which none of the others is worth a tinker’s darn. On the other hand, a few conservatives and not a few libertarians think God is irrelevant or absent and has no part in the discussion. They often exhibit a certain hypersensitivity to this subject, sometimes bordering on aggressive and offensive, but at any rate, emotional.

Come to think of it, we all get emotional about this regardless of our opinions.

People who insist that America must be a Christian nation are sometimes called Dominionists, and that is taken as pejorative, particularly by libertarians, who spend a lot of time worrying about the specter of a theocracy emerging.

The question is: can America survive as a secularist nation? Can it survive as an atheistic nation? Libertarian Ayn Rand, whose following seems to be growing, thought so. Yet, it is hard to point to a state that has existed in the past or still exists today, that is based on atheistic or secularist libertarianism. Further, atheism has been the hallmark of communism, an ideology the killed over 100 million people. Is that relevant?

This is a timeless topic and the subject of a debate that will not doubt rage on into the next century, unless one or the other side manages to muzzle the other.

What intrigues me is that all totalitarian states, including the Third Reich have strived extremely hard to overcome or even ban, all Christian influences. Look how hard the Left tries in America to erase our Christian heritage.

So, ironically, it is not Christians, but rather their detractors, who have focused on Christianity as a watershed factor in social, economic and political issues.

That is one important reason why spirituality is still a recurring theme.

But there is also something else that some conservatives have not come to terms with:

Having read the history of Christian socialism and heresy, I confess to understanding why people are fearful of religious fanaticism and the specter of a total theocracy.

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine away the benign influence of Christianity in America.

Cicero opined that the laws of the State should be based on natural law. Likewise, America’s founders spoke of Nature’s law and tied it in with spiritual law, saying our rights were given to us by God.

I happen to agree with them. But even if I didn’t, I can’t imagine being annoyed with people who do and trying to silence them.

If you have an opinion, you are welcome to post it here.

If you choose to post, please, in addition to whatever else you write, let us know where your stand personally and why, using this scale:

1    I believe religion has no place in decisions relating to economic, political and social issues  

2    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life but it plays only a minor role

3    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and it plays a secondary but not dominant role

4    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and ultimately God decides our fate depending on our behavior

5         Other

You can, for example, say “I choose 2” or “I am a 3” or whatever.

At this particular juncture, I see my job not as convincing you one way or another. My job is to help make sure one side never manages to get a muzzle on the other.

Don Hank

PS: Please, if you post, do not tell us about your commercial web page or your wonderful new pharmaceutical product. Also, while I agree that Obama has not adequately proven his natural born status, if you feel really strongly about that, may I suggest you post on the relevant pages already out there. Thank you.