Does pro-life have to mean anti-sovereignty?

Does pro-life mean anti-sovereignty?

 

by Donald Hank

 A while back pro-lifers started reminding us that the babies that were aborted since Wade/Roe would have been productive American workers and that there were some 40 million of them. They said that this shortfall had to be made up by immigrants and strongly suggested that God had therefore allowed the current situation of millions of illegals from Mexico. They sound almost gleeful as they announce this.

So illegal immigration and all the associated ills like increased crime, drug abuse and extra money spent on social services is a visitation of God’s wrath on America for the sin of abortion?

That’s the old liberal guilt by association theory. But a closer look shows that it wasn’t God who intervened to punish us but rather the neocons under George Bush-the same ones who teamed up with the Democrats to punish us via our financial markets. And it is not the Christian God who started and perpetuated this myth but rather some corrupt left-leaning church leaders, including many evangelicals, who use this argument to defang opponents who have legitimate concerns about the invasion from Mexico.

A while back I got in trouble with some of the anti-sovereigns in the pro-life movement when I ran my article exposing pro-lifer Mike Huckabee’s choice of Richard Haass as his proposed secretary of state. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is a huge red flag, but worse, had recently written a paper saying that we need to “rethink” the idea of sovereignty (meaning it is no longer needed in our post-modern world). I had also shown elsewhere how prominent church leaders like Dr. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, had criticized “nationalism,” and had shown that criticizing nationalism is just a sneaky way to undermine sovereignty. (If you understand that Land also endorses Al Gore’s ideas, it is not hard to imagine where he is situated on the political spectrum.) This criticism of nationalism is found throughout the denominations in America, which are coming under increasing centralized control and becoming little more than an arm of the Left, which is the main reason why you will almost never hear a “conservative” or “evangelical” leader or pastor speaking out against lawless immigration practices or sanctuary cities.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, he has become increasingly vocal about his pro-illegal immigration views, apparently believing he is invincible. An ad his campaign recently ran in Spanish (endorsed by McCain himself) absurdly “blames” the Obama camp for blocking immigration “reform,” which smart people know is code for amnesty. Frankly, folks, if conservatives knew the Obama camp were opposed to amnesty, I am sure some would consider voting for Obama, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I am not so sure it was the Democrats who torpedoed the amnesty bill. If I recall correctly, a lot of us, myself included, lobbied so hard against that bill (supported by McCain and Bush, for example) that the congressional phone lines went down.

But McCain must take us all for a bunch of bumpkins if he thinks there aren’t any conservatives who understand Spanish and can find out what he is up to.

Michelle Malkin recently slammed McCain hard on the border-amnesty issue. And there are good blogs that show how shameless officials and their immigration policies are causing unnecessary killings, rapes and other hardships on Americans. CNN’s Lou Dobbs does an outstanding job reporting on illegal immigration, and I recommend you tune out of Fox News and into CNN for as long as his show lasts.

But Malkin and Dobbs are almost alone these days. You won’t hear much meaningful talk on illegal immigration on talk radio or Fox News these days. Sean Hannity is still blathering about the evils of the Democrats as if the Republican leadership were back in the hands of Ron Reagan, but in his interviews with McCain and Palin (where does she stand?), never mentions illegal immigration, as if the issue has gone away.

But we are far from that these days, and short of an act of God, we are in for 4 very very rocky years, no matter who is elected.

Oh, and if you believe pro-life automatically means anti-sovereignty, I have a bridge I can sell you.

 

Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.

 

By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ-the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church-Larry Bland and Nate Spencer-were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads-all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

 

Read more

Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

There is something sinister going on here. James Sundquist (see below) had read my article “Did Rev. Rob Schenk really owe that apology to Rick Warren” (in which I demonstrate that he did not), but nowhere in that article did I disclose the email address of the person who sent me the slanderous email suggesting that I had somehow sullied a “man of God.”

Yet, as God is my witness, the email address Sundquist gives for this “Hunt” character (saee below), Drrsbm@hotmail.com, is indeed the address of the Randy J. I mentioned in that article.

And the subject line “ready to eat crow?” is identical as well. Now, let’s try not to get paranoid and ask whether the name “Hunt” is itself a veiled threat (as in “hunt and kill”?), although Sundquist, one of the most thorough investigators out there, has uncovered sinister means used to destroy numerous God-fearing people who have dared to criticize “America’s pastor.” In point of fact, just after my article exposing the attack on Ken Silva ran at Laigle’s Forum, Rick’s team put up a press release at Christian Newswire showing the cover of Time Magazine featuring a photo of Rick and calling him the most powerful religious leader of our time.

Why the emphasis on power? I don’t mean by Time but rather by Rick’s PR team. Why at that time, just after the Silva scandal broke, when you’d expect Rick to be laying low, would he suddenly focus on how powerful he is?  Part of the alleged abuse was abuse of …what?… power! So the PR team decides to highlight it? The old-fashioned evangelists and pastors I remember from my youth focused on the power of God, not their own power. Had they done so, they would have immediately gone into that great dustbin in the sky. But the “revolutionary inversion” (=post-modernism) as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, is upon us.

Of course, perhaps this attack on Brother Sundquist cannot be laid directly at the feet of Rick Warren. However, Warren acolytes have already forced one godly blogger (Brother Silva, see above) off the internet and, according to Sundquist, threatened others. And I received a similar attack from the exact same source, so someone has begun to see themselves as defenders not of the faith but of Rick the person. That smacks of cult behavior, and if Risk is smart, he will distance himself from these zealots before a major scandal breaks. In fact, it is probably only by the grace of Big Media that it hasn’t already happened.

One lady who does a radio show told me that she was threatened with legal action after merely cautioning her listeners to see what the Bible says and compare it to what Warren says in his book. Sounds like good advice to me, and if I had been Rick, I’d have said “amen”, but the person who contacted her in Warren’s defense scared her enough that she put a lawyer on the case.

Think about it: Have you ever heard of Billy Graham followers going after his detractors like that?

I think we are supposed to pray for those who revile us, not threaten to sue them!

But even if you want to depart from the Word of God, at least practice what you preach: civility.

 Donald Hank

 

PROOF OF SLANDER BY “HUNT” WHOSE EMAIL ADDRESS IS: Drrsbm@hotmail.com (see copy of email below)

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not ask the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.

Someone sent this to me…can’t tell if they want me to eat crow?

But there still remains NOTHING I ever said about Rick Warren that is still not true.  I saw the entire forum last night and it only confirmed my convictions about Rick Warren, if for no other reason than the following question posed to both candidates by Rick Warren:

“What should the U.S. do to end religious persecution?”

Warren could be one of the world’s greatest hypocrites for asking that question.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is my question for Mr. Warren:

What can the church do to end the persecution of churches by Purpose Driven hostile takeovers that purpose-drive true Christians from their churches, as I document in my “Spiritual Euthanasia” article?

I also address Warren’s question about evil in my second book on Rick Warren which describes how Rick Warren answered that question.

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not as the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.

Blessings,

James

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Hunt” <Drrsbm@hotmail.com>

Date: August 17, 2008 7:39:50 AM EDT

To: <rock.salt@verizon.net>

Subject: Ready to eat crow?

 

The entire nation will know you are a fool sir, if you do not do the same. You have misjudged a godly man and the entire world knows it now. Are you man enough to admit it or will your sinful pride (or lust for book sales) keep you in denial?

 

Rick Warren Critic Admits he Was Wrong to Jump to Conclusions – Praises Warren Civil Forum on the Presidency

 

Last update: 10:28 p.m. EDT Aug. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON, Aug 16, 2008 – The Reverend Rob Schenck, who was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times and on National Public Radio criticizing Pastor Rick Warren for announcing he would not pose questions on hot-button issues to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain during tonight’s Civil Forum on the Presidency, reversed his negative opinion before the event had even ended.

“I was wrong to jump to negative conclusions,” said Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council and a minister to elected and appointed officials in Washington, DC. “I made the wrong assumptions. As a result of his Saddleback Forum, Rick Warren helped us to get a clearer picture of the candidates, their moral and spiritual principles and their philosophy of government. It was better than I had prayed it would be.”

Schenck praised the contribution the forum has made to the election process. “While it is not the final word on which candidate is best, Christians and all Americans should find this forum very helpful as they consider who they will pick to occupy the White House in 2009. Rick Warren didn’t cover it all,  but he did accomplish more than anyone else has so far in unpacking who the two candidates really are. I applaud him.”

SOURCE National Clergy Council