Singaporean Defends Home Country's Limitations on Freedom of Speech

From R_Ramendump:

Free speech is good, but calling singapore a dictatorship, that many are saying in the comments is not a true statement. A dictatorship is a country under the rule of a single person or party, with no tolerance of any other ruling ideologies, yes there is a law against speaking out against the government and religions in singapore, but that is for a whole other reason than muting the people and making sure the party is at the top. I am myself, I have no bias towards any ruling party for I am unable to vote. 

In 1965, there were racial riots between the prominent races in singapore at the time, this was due to a few uneducated or badly educated troublemaking people back in the day, they spread false information and accused certain races of things, causing hatred to brew in their racial groups. A huge riot was a result of that, many people died, yes not as much as wars and some other riots in other countries, but if a country had the ability to prevent this from happening again, would they not? 

If a riot ensued in Singapore in modern times this would mean alot of problems, Singapore is a international port, many countries including the US, China, India, Japan, Canada and many others use our port ofr entrepot trade, if Singapore ceases to function, all countries would be affected, not only us. At the cost of slight free speech, against racial disagreements and political disagreements to ensure stability of the relations between the people in our country, I feel that it is an ok trade off, instead of the sadly, dysfunctionality of some parts of countries with Free Speech, such as the US. 

Again, many people are allowed to have many of their own opinions, just that the opinions that could cause potential trouble in Singapore are silenced with a limit. Singapore still allows for people to talk out against the government for inequality and problems, as long as its viable to the other groups and societies in the country. Singapore has also many parties, but one party has been ruling for a long while due to their immense popularity with our people, there is doubt in the party controlling the votes as their votes seem to be decreasing in the past few years, as younger voters, uninfluenced by the party's past deeds have been voting. 

The only thing I have against the current party is how they convicted "communists" without much solid evidence, as a push for independence from the British. Feel free to discuss about this topic with me, calmly.

Senator Wendy Rogers Gets It

Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers has guts. She is not afraid to fight the culture war and win. That's one of the most important things that President Trump accomplished during his first term in office.

Yes, Republicans can--and should--fight the culture war, and yes Republicans can--and must--win the culture war.

Here is Wendy Rogers' latest email, preparing for her run for state senate next year. She points out the slow-moving societal and cultural decay which has become so commonplace in the United States. Why does the Left keep winning? Why do they get to keep pushing their lies on society as a whole, and the rest of the country feels compelled to go along with it?

Hi Arthur,   I'm Arizona Senator Wendy Rogers, Trump-endorsed Arizona Senator fighting to change the discussion and fight the woke Left. I need your help- to meet my goal with only a day left! The Left changed the conversation in little ways. Remember when they created "Kwanzaa" to compete with Christmas? We laughed at them in the 90s, but then look now: Their stupid fake holiday changed the conversation over time. THAT is what patriots like us need to do. We need to change the conversation, move the Overton Window, so that future debates are made on our terms, not theirs.  That is what I am doing, every day. No more crazy woke things. No more Kwanzaa. No more "drag queen story hour". No more CRT. No more open borders.  And no more stolen elections. The media and the Communists hold us in contempt. They are out to stop me- so I need your help urgently! Friday, I have a HUGE end of YEAR deadline! This is the first time the media will see what I've raised. Let's shock and awe them! I had a goal of $50,000 raised this month- and I only need $14,650 to accomplish my goal. Help me show the media and the RINOs the strength of our Movement!  The Commies will continue if we don't stop it. Help me show the media and the Left that they won't steal our country! Thank you so much, Wendy Rogers, Lt Col USAF (ret) Arizona State Senator Arizona's 6th Legislative District P.S. George Soros and the leftwing billionaires are going to target my district again with millions of dollars in attack ads like they did last time. Will you help me fend off the attacks by contributing before the end of this year?   PAID FOR BY WENDY ROGERS FOR AZ SENATE Wendy Rogers is a retired member of the Air Force. Use of military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Air Force or the Department of Defense.

Copyright © 2021 Wendy Rogers for AZ Senate, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Wendy Rogers for AZ Senate 2700 S Woodlands Village Blvd Ste 300-242 Flagstaff, AZ 86001-7128 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

For the record, she calls out fake holiday Kwanzaa. She denounces Drag Queen Story Hour. She has just introduced legislation to ban the sex mutilation of minors. And she has been a vocal advocate for election integrity, both in Arizona and around the country.

Legislators need to get busy, like State Senator Rogers. There is no excuse for people to get elected on a conservative platform, but make no efforts to actually accomplish conservative goals.

The Tragedy of "Free Speech" Miscreant Amos Yee

Amos Yee, Singaporean Blogger turned Pedophile Advocate
Turned convicted criminal

For the last two years, I have been following the perverse tragedy of Amos Yee.

A refugee from Singapore, Yee ran afoul of his country's strict laws regarding freedom of expression. In Singapore, one can face stiff fines or even jail time for insulting or wounding religious or ethnic sensibilities,

In 2015, Yee did exactly that, even though he was still a minor. He produced a number of videos denouncing Singapore's Founding Father Lee Kwan Yew. His rhetoric included a great deal of vile cursing and vulgar statements, as well. He also called Jesus Christ a fraud, and he even shared a picture of Lee Kwan Yew in bed with Margaret Thatcher, mocking the Founder's pro-free market economic policies.

He ended up spending over 50 days in jail for his hateful remarks. At the same time, he turned into a cause celebre among the liberal elites in Singapore, and even some free-speech activists in the United States.

Fearing that he would be jailed again if he shared his views further, he fled Singapore and sought refuge in the United States in 2018. President Trump attempted to block his asylum application, but a federal judge in Chicago granted his request, and so Yee was allowed to stay.

For the next year, he toured the "conservative" free speech circuit, shocking audiences with his radical, even licentious, criminal views on speech. He became an actual advocate for pedophilia! Disgusting, but true. He even shared that people should be allowed to threaten immediate and immiment violent threats. The United States has a very liberal policy when it comes to freedom of speech, no doubt. Mr. Yee would not have faced prison time for writing vile things about different religions or the founders of any country.

Here is his interview with Dave Rubin. Click here.

Here is his interview with Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Click here.

(Check out the title for Rev. Jesse's video, too: Far-Left Anarcho-Communist Demands Open Borders, More Illegals, & Pedophiles Roaming Free (Full Ep.))

However, even the United States, whether in state or federal statute, does not permit individuals to make immediate, provocate, dire violent threats against others. Such threats are indeed taken very seriously.

The greatest alarm comes from his active, flippant, extremely disturbing endorsement of pedophilia. He actually argued that child can consent to sexual relationships with adults, and that such relationships should be legal. So-called conservative influencers and commentators, like the ones above, gave him free access to spew his views. Frankly, freedom of speech is essential for hashing out views and for allowing people to critique and challenge ideas and ideologies that they favor or disapprove.

Yet the situation with Amos Yee was different. By the time he arrived in the United States, he had become an adult. But before then, as a minor, he had been proppped up in all kinds of ways, enabled to speak his mind, to speak evil of dignities, to defy mores and traditions. Many activists on the cultural and political left celebrated this twerp.

But I sensed what a number of people also shared with me on an individual basis: this Amos Yee child was a very troubled young man, to say the least. He was clearly very bitter, angry. He wanted to lash out at all authority. In his interview with Dave Rubin, he was still a minor living in Singapore. His mother was busy doing housework behind the scenes. Where was his father? Did either of his parents have enough sense to discipline their child and teach him manners, to respect the laws in his country--or at the very least, prepare him for the legal fallout for expressing his views?

Why were national speakers and commentators giving this disturbed, disrespectful kid a platform? How was any of this going to help the cause of spreading freedom of speech or ensuring that the Singapore government would grant full recognition and protection for freedom of speech? How would this help the cause of spreading and assuring freedom of speech in the United States or the rest of the Western world?

When one considers all of the above questions and factors, it's pretty clear that these social media influencers just wanted to cash in on the latest "free speech" craze, nothing more. It is really troubling, since this young man really need help, not enabling.

And the enabling turned into a very disgusting, criminal outcome.

Amos Yee was arrested last year for soliciting sex with a minor. He faced multiple counts, a high bail amount, and a very long prison sentence should he found guilty in a court of law.

Here's a complete run-down of the charges that he faced:

Yee was charged with child pornography and grooming after he allegedly exchanged nude photos and “thousands” of messages with a 14-year-old girl while living in Chicago back in 2019.

They met in February that year over the Riot chat app.

Not only did he send her nude photos, Yee also asked for nude photos of the girl over Whatsapp, and got them. He also persuaded the victim to appear on video and other mediums, which is why he was handed a charge of child pornography.

Child pornography, folks. This is not a joke. This is not funny. And he was sending out warning signs for at least two years during his stay in the United States. He actively and repeatedly endorsed sex with children. Does anyone find it surprising that he wanted to engage in such unseemly behaviors himself?

How could free speech advocates sit idly by and let him pontificate like he was some kind of free speech hero? He was a free speech miscreant, more or less, and had serious emotional, mental, and character issues, to say the least. He needed some real discipline, not people who allow him to dish on just about anything.

Earlier this year, he ultimately plead guilty to two charges of child pornography and grooming. He will serve six years in a federal penitentiary, then most likely be deported back to Singapore, where he will most likely face more jail time for reneging on his citizen-based duty to serve in Singapore's national service for two years full-time.

This is really tragic. When I learned about the final plea deal, I was sickened and outraged. All the adults in Singapore and the United States who were dancing around this guy, celebrating him and holding him up as a role model for full freedom of speech, were in reality hurting him and leading to harm against other people, too. Indeed, it's necessary and proper for citizens in their respective countries to fight for freedom of speech. I do believe that countries should take every step they can to ensure freedom of expression.

However, Amos Yee was the wrong vehicle for doing so. He was a troubled youth who needed help, and adults--who are supposed to be adults and put the needs of children first ahead of their own desires--used him to get views, likes, and to broaden their own appeal as "woke" activists for fighting repressive authority or pushing the limits of permissible expressions of speech.

I must say, I don't think I have ever felt so outraged, so angry about a situation as this one. There is so much wrong with what happened her: bad parents, selfish commentators, a corrupted media culture invested in shock and awe rather than truth and true advocacy--and in the midst of it, a troubled kid who became a troubling young adult who troubled other kids.

All of this was preventable. Shame on every adult who did not step up and push back on Amos Yee's perverted insolence. They could have saved his life, and at the very least ensured he had a life worth living. It's disgusting that adults, both in Amos Yee's home country and the United States, enabled and celebrated this creep for his "free speech" antics. All the while, he was an active advocate for pedophilia and other sexual perversions, along with other communistic ideologies. Where are all the anti-authoritarian free speech advocates now? They enabled this troubled young--now a troubling adult. This whole affair really outrages me. It's such a tragedy that a kid with such intellect could turn into a troubled adult with a criminal record, and no one stepped up to stop him when they had the chance.

Evangelism is About Revelation, not Reason

                                          

Last night, while I was visiting the Del Amo mall, a young man walked up to me.

His name was Anthony.

He started talking to me about Jesus Christ. He wanted to share the Gospel with me. I had no problem with him talking to me, since I had announced at the outset that I believe in Jesus, that He is my Savior, and I am so grateful for all the blessings which He has--and is--lavishing on me.

He began rattling off a number of Scriptures, including key passages in the Book of Revelation. He showed me passages about the Spirit and the Bride, and how they both invite us to draw from the Water o Life:

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:17)

He then asked me "What does the water of life represent?"

I said "The Holy Spirit." and I referenced this verse in the Gospel of John:

"37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39)

He then mentioned the account of Jesus with the woman at the well in John chapter. I agreed.

He then asked me whether I had the Holy Spirit or not. I shared with him: "Yes, I do."

He then asked me: "How do you get the Holy Spirit?"

I told him that because I believed in Jesus, I have received the Holy Spirit.

He seemed perturbed somewhat, that I had answers to many of his questions. It really showed how disrespectful he was, that he refused to listen to me at the outset, that I had said that I am a Christian, and that I believe in Jesus Christ.

At that point, I asked him which church he belonged to. I was starting to wonder if he was a Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon, or a member of the so-called United Church of Christ, which denies the full deity and pre-eminence of Jesus Christ.

The discussion then veered to how people need to keep the law of the New Covenant. He pointed to the passage in which Jesus took the cup of blessing at the Last Supper, and He declared "This is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant."

I was really disturbed when he said "Law" in relation to the New Covenant. I began to interrupt him, but gently. "We are no longer under law. We are under grace. You can find this in Romans."

He would not let me finish. He then stood up, said to me "You are a lawbreaker," and he walked away. A simple rush of peace came over me. I did not lose my temper, I did not raise my voice. Before he walked away though, I chided him, "Why will you not let me speak. I have allowed you to speak, haven't I?"

At that point, he called me a "lawbreaker," and he left. He did not get the answers that he was hoping for, I suppose. He had probably been trained that he would force me into an intellectual corner and cause me to acknowledge that I am a sinner or something else. He was hoping to win me over with a clear decision for Jesus.

What was really striking about his evangelism, if one can call it that, is that he did not mention the name of Jesus even once. He did not give the impression that he even knew how Jesus is!

While that dialogue between Anthony and me had been taking place, there was another gentleman, an older man, who was watching. When Anothony walked away, he laughed and asked me "What was that all about?" I told him how he was trying to share the Gospel with me--although the reality is that he had no good news to share, since he wanted to bring me back under law, and did not mention grace once.

He then remarked: "Wow! That's so sad. He was upset that you are religious, even though he was trying to make you religious. One would think that he would be happy for you!"

He was not interested in helping me. He was interested in "winning a convert," or at the very least winning an argument. That is not true evangelism.

I must admit, however, that I waded into this similar fight for pre-eminence with the older gentleman who started speaking with me afterwards. He told me that he is not religious, and he believes that there are too many inconsistencies with belief, plus all the complexities in the world, for him to believe that there is a God.

I insisted on asking him some questions. He clearly was not prepared to articulate his views on the issue. He wanted to defend evolution, and I asked him the usual questions which set such thinking to naught, such as "where is the evidence?" I also asked him "Where in the fossil record does one find the transitioning species?"

I felt the Lord telling me "This is not the right time to share with this man. This is not the approach to sharing the Gospel with him." Still, I pressed him a few more times on a couple of questions about the origins of the uinverse, how everything came about if not by intelligent design. Then, it seemed as though he had to take a call, and I took that motion as my cue to walk away.

As I walked away toward the center of the mall, I realized a number of things. I used to be an agressive evangelist like Anthony. I had a set of questions that I would press on someone, and then I could turn the whole situation around on them to say "You are a sinner, and you need a Savior. Would you like to believe in Jesus Christ and let Him be Lord of your life?"

Back then, I was so interested in winning arguments based on intellect. Today, I realize that Jesus is not just real, and real to my experience, but that He is more than a nice thought or a sentimental result of our reasoning.

Jesus is alive! He is a person! And evangelism should be all about sharing a great revelation of how great He is in our lives. We should be talking about Jesus the same way that we talk about a loving friends, relative, spouse, i.e. someone whom we know intimately, and whom we want others to know intimately, too!

Evangelism is about sharing the Good News, and that Good News is summed up perfectly in Acts 13:

"38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)

We receive forgiveness of sins--all our sins. We are justified from all things, that we cannot receive by the law of Moses.

I did not understand the Gospel in this fullness at all. I had understood the Gospel as something so work-centered, so "I" centered. How sad it is, yet so true. No wonder I was not much of a witness in years past!

Today, I understand fully God's unmerited favor, which I receive through Christ Jesus. Today, I know that He is my life, my Savior. I am connected to a real Person, not just some figment of my imagination, or a set of principles or verses. 

"Herein is love perfected among us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgement: because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

It has taken me a long time to understand how fully real Jesus is to me. It's never been about me or about my self-efforts. It was never about having the right thoughts or doing the right things to ensure that Jesus would always be with me, that His Spirit would always be at work in me.

Today, I am learning so much about how to let that River of Life flow through me uninterrupted, unhampered by my efforts. I am learning that to share the Gospel is as simple as declaring: "Jesus Christ has died for all your sins. You can receive full freedom from condemnation and receive His life!"

Republicans Rising: No One Wants to Be on "The View"

I think Republicans are finally learning how to play this game called "media."

For the last twenty-something years, Republicans have signed up to get slaughtered on the left-wing hexing, vixen hatefest called "The View."

The three or four liberals (really communist regressives) routinely get away with sparring and slamming anyone who is right-of-center, and they allow little room for difference of opinion or debate.

Meghan McCain was the last Republican, in reality a full-on anti-Trump RINO, who waded (or waddled) into the crocodile swamp, where she was beaten, snapped at, stomped, smeared, and repeatedly shamed.

To be clear, I have no respect or any sense of compassion for McCain. She chose to sell out and harm herself on the show for the views, the clicks, the clout, whatever.

Finally, she quit the show, and she dished extensively on what a hateful bunch of harpies the rest of The View cohosts turned out to be.

And other Republicans have taken notice, and no one is signing up to take McCain's place.

Of course, The View's producers have outlined a whole host of limitations, caveats, and expectations for the potential new "Republican" co-host.

Politico reports:

Sources close to the show said that the search has stalled as executives struggle to find a conservative cast-member who checks all the right boxes. They will not consider a Republican who is a denier of the 2020 election results, embraced the January 6 riots, or is seen as flirting too heavily with fringe conspiracy theories or the MAGA wing of the GOP. But at the same time, the host must have credibility with mainstream Republicans, many of whom still support DONALD TRUMP.

So basically the producers do not really want a Republican. Any serious conservative who wants to be a true spokesman for the new, proper, growing brand of populist Republicanism will assert that the election was stolen. The evidence is too widespread to ignore.

They want a wannabe Republican who will basically agree with the rest of the co-hosts about another range of issues, as well. What kind of debate/talk show is this, really?

It's a progressive hatefest, nothing more. Politico itself has wandered into conspiracy theory precisely for denying the truth that there are considerable election irregularities which took place during the 2020 election and afterwards. No one should be blind to these facts. What's more, no Republican can be taken as a serious Republican if they do not support Donald Trump. It's just that simply.

The View cannot have it both ways. They either get a real Republican, one who supports Trump, or they get nothing.

Another problem which the producers face is that they cannot bring in wimpy, simpy RINOs who are actively liberal post-Trump:

At the same time, the anti-Trump conservative can’t be seen as too chummy with the other co-hosts, as the network’s market-research shows that the audience wants to see the women spar. Sources said that this has hurt the chances of ANA NAVARRO, a regular fill-in on the conservative chair who worked as a surrogate for JOE BIDEN in 2020: She is perceived by the producers as too.

Again, any Republican who is chummy with those left-wing cacklers is not a Republican.

So, what can we conclude from this dearth of willing GOP victims?

Republicans are finally getting smart. Instead of attempting to have a civil debate with such uncivil people, Republicans, real conservatives who want to take Trumpism to the next level and really shape the culture, refuse to waste their time getting hen-pecked by liberal hate-mongers. It's all for the best that no Republican steps up. The show's ratings will finally start declining, since no one wants to watch four ugly liberal women talk about how they think America is ugly, but they are beautiful.

This is it, Republicans. It is time to get smart and stop playing the left-wing media game. We need to give up this notion that corporate media wants to have an audience and open dialogue on serious issues. They seek nothing more than blatant left-wing propaganda and accommodation, and they seek token "Republican" opposition to give themselves the appearance that they are diverse and balanced.

Why I Loathe Alcoholics Anonymous

 

"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11)

For years, I was stepped in this terrible cult called Alcoholics Anonymous.

My mother was a recovering alcoholic, according to her statements, testimony, blah. She worked "the steps" every day of her life, so she claimed. She got sober in 1978, having had a spiritual revelation after drinking a morning mimosa. Something in her spirit told her "You don't have to do this anymore."

And that was the last time she drank alcohol. For the record, I feel compelled to point out that she received a spiritual revelation from God, not help or support from working Twelve Steps. However, the evil genius of Alcoholics Anonymous is to teach people that "It works if you work it" and the Big Book offers this guarantee that people who follow the Twelve Steps rarely fail.

The truth is, my Mom got sober without AA, but she still believed that she had to work the Twelve Steps every day of her life just to get through the day.

On another note, my mother quit smoking when she prayed, when she asked the LORD for help and stopped relying on her own efforts to quit. "I have no faith in me, and I have very little faith in you."

But God can use our little faith to do great things, and my mother was set free from smoking.

Sadly, she was still addicted to AA, and she worked that awful program, until it worked her to death.

Why do I loathe AA? It's not just that that legalistic, self-loathing cult damaged my mother, it's not just that that awful cult turned my mother into an abusive therapy who put her own "recovery" ahead of the needs of her children, her family, and anyone else--even Christ Himself!

I loathe AA because it teaches people to identify with a lie.

At every meeting, every member of the club in the "rewms" will say: "Hi, my name is ... , and I am an alcoholic."

Now, tell me ... how can we really expect anyone to break free of a damaging perversion if we teach people to identify with it? If you are "born" an alcoholic, then you should just drink and drink until you pass out or die.

BUT ... people are NOT born alcoholic. Just as there is no evidence that people are born gay, there is no gene for alcoholic. Granted, patterns of alcoholism do ensue in families, but it has to do with the abuse and trauma which children suffer from their parents, and there is this uncanny tendency for children to replicate the bad behaviors of their parents based on the imprinting and the wrong believing that comes with identifying with one's parents--no matter how bad they may be,

To sum up: no, people are not born "alcoholic." What's more, many people get over alcoholism without taking those ridiculous Twelve Steps.

The AA cult teaches lies to its members. It purports to not be a religious program, and yet members are instructed to turn their will and their life over to a "Higher Power" as they understand Him. Going beyond that, however, this Higher Power is still subject to the Twelve Steps--which have no pattern or value in the Old or New Testaments. In effect, the higher power for everyone in AA is not the Lord God as revealed in the Scriptures.

It's the creepy God of Bill W.'s insidious creation. (For those who don't know, Bill Wilson--or Bill W.--founded Alcoholics Anonymous.) Bill W. is treated with almost divine reverence in the meeting rewms of AA. It's really sickening. Let's state this fact plaintly once more: this "Higher Power" is an invention of Bill W.

It is total idolatry. Christians, Muslims, Jews, anyone who belongs to any faith community should reject AA out of hand. 

But for those who believe in Jesus, who recognize the Bible as God's Word, AA is all the more fully incompatible.

This terrible cult teaches people to identify with a sin, with an addiction, a moral failing.

What does the Bible say about our new identity in Christ?

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

We receive a new standing before our Loving Father. God is no more some distant deity, but our Loving Father!

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15)

and

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Yes, AA's Big Book makes one reference that "He is our Father. We are His children," but then goes back to leveling adherents with religious demands. The truth is, the AA program does not reveal anything about the Higher Power, aside from what is in the book. This notion of "God as I understand Him" is absolutely ludicrous. If I could understand God, He would not be God anymore, now, would He?

But I digress.

The biggest fraud about the AA cult is that it teaches people to identify with their sins, with their failures, with their faults.

At the top of this post, I quote Romans 6:11, in which Paul clearly declares to the Christian believers in Roman: "Reckon yourself dead indeed to sin, and alive to God through Jesus Christ."

When you are born again, you are no longer a sinner. You are a saint. You are a child of God. Yes, there is training, there is the process of sanctification, which the Holy Spirit works on and in us as we see more of Jesus in the Word (cf 2 Corinthians 3:18)

You don't need to take steps to be one with your Heavenly Father.

In fact, even in the Old Testament, taking steps to God's altar was expressly forbidden:

"Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." (Exodus 20:26)

If we try in our own efforts to get right with God, we merely expose our nakedness, our sin, our shame:

"But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

But in Christ, we have the fullness of His work. He declared "It is Finished" (John 19:30)

But you are no longer a sinner, and you are called to no longer identify with sin or any sins in your life.

Alcoholics Anonymous urges people to keep identifying with their sins, to keep rehashing their failures, to keep going to the joyless AA meeting, to keep repeating the empty mantras, to fall in line with the mob mentality, the mob identity.

My mother worked the program all right ... until she ended up taking her own life in 2012. This is the first time I have made this revelation public, but it needs to be said. Anyone who learns that he has to keep looking at his own sins and failures, that he must keep "taking his inventory" to stay one step ahead of an alcohol relapse, is looking at an empty life full of shame, hurt, and loss.

The number of people who have committed suicide while going to the AA "rewms" is pretty staggering, as well. But is anyone really surprised? A relentless program of self-loathing and self-abnegation is not going to produce happiness, joy, or freedom. 

Did I forget to mention that AA members often tout that their program is a "selfish" program, as if that is something to be proud of ...?

At any rate, I hope I have explained fully why I loathe Alcoholics Anonymous. The blood of Jesus cleanses everyone of us from all sins (1 John 1:9), and Jesus rests as the propitiation (full payment) for our sins and the sins of the entire world. If He has paid for all the sins of all the world, then there is no reason for people to rehash their sins or rest in their failures. It's time to stop focusing on ourselves and start focusing on Christ Jesus! Forget the false god of Alcoholics Anonymous and believe in Christ and Him Crucified:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Ephesians 2:8)

If you find that you are still struggling with certain behaviors or bad habits, you just need to receive more favor, a greater revelation of Christ Jesus, and who you are in Christ:

"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18)

and

"1If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. 

5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:" (Colossians 3:1-5)

and

"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord," (2 Peter 1:2)

We don't need AA. Let us have grace, which we receive through Christ Jesus!

Dishonest Jean Adelsman Preaches Unity, But Posts Partisan Rancor

I am really tired of Torrance politicians who preach "let's put aside partisanship" and "Let's be united," when at the same time they have not just a disagreement, but an intense dislike for anyone who does not vote for the same presidential or state candidates as they do.

Check out what Jean Adelsman, who is running for Torrance City Council, and what she really thinks about voters who voted for Donald Trump, for example.

It's not just her partisanship that is a problem, but it's the rank dishonesty that really rankles me. She is a definite NO for serving on the Torrance City Council.

At first, there doesn't seem to be a problem. For her campaign, she is making a bold case for getting past partisanship and urging people to focus on local issues that everyone can agree on.

But is that really true?

Check out her website:

Here's her claim about unity and supposedly wanting to end partisan gridlock:

What is the power of purple?

Partisan divisions are tearing our nation apart.  Even at the local level, the battle between team red and team blue rages on.  The consequences are political gridlock and people not being served by their government.

It’s time to stop focusing on what we disagree on and start working on the things we have in common.  We all want safe and clean communities, great schools, a healthy and vibrant economy and a local government that is responsive to its residents.  We want to make Torrance an even better place to live, work and play.

When red and blue come together you get purple, and you get the power to succeed on the things that matter most.  This is how I plan to work on the Torrance City Council, bringing people together to get good things done.

She says now that she is all about bringing people together.

But what did she think of President Trump when he was running for office?

Here are some posts from her Facebook feed (all of which have been recently taken down, for some reason ...)

Check out this post:

She posted this during the height of the 2016 election.

"Please unfriend me" Jean declared bluntly to the public, if anyone in the public voted for Donald Trump.

This goes beyond whether she likes or dislikes Trump. That's one thing.

But for her to say "Go away" to anyone who voted for Trump (or any other Presidential candidate that she may not have supported, for that matter) ... that goes against everything that she claims to stand for today.

For the record, I have friends who voted for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jill Stein, other candidates who were running for President in 2016 and 2020. I have friends to this day who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I would never cast off a friendship simply because someone voted for a Presidential candidate that I did not support.

But Jean Adelsman, who claims to be all about unity, wants to brush off, cast out anyone who voted for Donald Trump--and then she took the posts down from her Facebook page. The fact that she would hide such brazen partisanship is deeply offensive, insulting even.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Jean Adelsman.

What's really disturbing is that she shared a post that comes from "Occupy Democrats," which is one of the most partisan, progressive (unlike Torrance) organizations in the country.

According to Wikipedia:

Occupy Democrats is a United States-based, left-wing media outlet built around a Facebook Group and corresponding website. Established in 2012, it publishes false information, hyperpartisan content, and clickbait.

Bear in mind that many people consider Wikipedia to have taken on a partisan bias. Yet even with that taken into account, the fact that even writers and contributors to Wikipedia find "Occupy Democrats" to be hyperpartisan should cause all of us some concern.

And encourage us to confront Jean Adelsman on her dishonesty.

Here's another post, that should tell you all about Jean's true sentiments:

"Say No to Trump," she shares. Does that also mean "No" to people who voted for Trump, as well?

She apparently didn't pay attention to what happened in Virginia earlier this year, in which three Republican statewide candidates won over Democratic as well as Republican voters to get elected, even though the state had been trending Democratic for the last ten years.

What happened? Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin and his team reached out to voters based on the issues that they cared about. They did not disparage voters if they supported Joe Biden or President Trump in the 2020 General Election.

And yet, here we are with Jean Adelsman, who wants to serve on the Torrance City Council, pushing this pretentious plea for unity and bipartisanship, when all the while she harbors a hatred of Trump and for people who voted for Trump.

Torrance is better than this. We need people on the Torrance City Council who will focus on the concerns of the city and make the right--yet sometimes hard--decisions for the city. We need people who will look past who people selected for President and focus on doing what is best for the city at present.

Jean Adelsman does not meet that standard.

Dishonest Jean is a No for me.

Pastor Scott Lively Explains: "Replacement Theology is a Fraud"

 A CAUTION TO THORN KICKERS

The most famous Jew of the Bible, after the Judean Jesus, was Paul, the self-described “Pharisee of Pharisees.” That chief persecutor of Christians, who was known first by his Hebrew name Saul, adopted the Latinized version “Paul” after being famously, uniquely saved and anointed for service by the ascended Christ Himself on the road to Damascus in Acts 22. When giving that testimony to King Agrippa in Acts 26:14, Paul reported that Jesus had said “in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

To kick against pricks (thorns) has ever since been a metaphor for foolishly harming oneself by persisting in futile acts against God’s will. Significantly, the thorns in question were almost certainly from the same plant of which Jesus’ Crown of Thorns was made: “Euphorbia Milii,” known commonly today as “Christ thorn.” That crown was the first element of the Romans' mocking tribute to "The King of the Jews" in John 19. 

Paul believed he was serving God by opposing the Christians but was only hurting himself because he didn’t understand God’s plan for the church until his spiritual eyes were opened -- by being (temporarily) physically struck blind. 

Likewise, many Christians in today’s “anti-Zionist” camp don’t understand God’s plan for the Jews and are thus “kicking against the pricks” by denying their right to the Holy Land.

As God’s post-conversion Apostle to the Gentiles, the Jews’-Jew-become-Christian Paul was uniquely qualified for his special mission as God’s messenger to non-Jews and his letters provide us most of the reasoned systematic theology that defines Christianity. God’s perspective about the Jews and Judaism is scattered throughout Paul’s letters, but is most complete in his Letter to the Romans, including the critical question of how Gentiles are to treat Jews in the Gentile age, filling the entire 11th chapter, key excerpts of which follow: 

“I [Paul] ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew....What Israel [as a whole] was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect [those few Jews who accepted Christ] did. The others were hardened...I ask then, did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Certainly not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?...Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ That is correct: ... And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved [at the Second Coming, when]...The Deliverer will come from Zion...For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Romans 11 is an unequivocal proof-text against “supercessionism” (replacement theology) which holds that the church fully replaced the Hebrews as the beneficiary of His covenant. Supercessionism (and its pernicious cousin punative supercessionism) is the great error of Roman Catholicism (which was largely retained by Protestantism in the reformation), justifying the persecution of the Jews in many pogroms throughout history, and in turn causing Jews to create their own culture-shaping/controlling mechanisms in self-defense, as God gave them the power to do (Genesis 22:17c). 

[My only goal in stating this observation is to seek the objective truth above that fray. I have come to believe that much, or perhaps most of world history in the Age of the Gentiles has been shaped by a largely behind-the-scenes war for world control between the institutions of Roman Catholicism and Talmudic Judaism. I have launched a new book research project on this hypothesis with the working title of "Judah Under the Gentiles."] 

As much as I love both Roman Catholic and Talmudic Jewish friends whom I have known, both religious camps represent a departure from Scripture through the undue elevation of (sometimes but not always false) human-created doctrines and interpretations that came to define them. But just as Paul noted in Romans 11:2-5, there has always been a remnant of true believers in both Christianity and Judaism (which fact does not nullify John 14:6). 

Pacific Justice Institute Takes on Amtrack

 

PJI On Track to Derail Amtrak Vaccine Policy December 13th, 2021 Media Contact: Brad Dacus, 916-616-4126  Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) has been retained by numerous Amtrak employees after Amtrak announced that its employees must receive a COVID-19 vaccine or face unpaid leave. As many as 1,000 Amtrak employees submitted requests for religious accommodation regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. In “granting” some of the requests, Amtrak has stated that these employees with religious objections, starting January 4, 2022, will be placed on unpaid leave for ninety days and that the employees cannot seek other employment during that time. Amtrak is required by law to show that mandating the vaccine is the “least restrictive means” of achieving its desired “safety” goals. There are many other ways in which Amtrak could protect its workforce from and prevent the spread of COVID-19, including mask wearing, social distancing, testing for antibodies, or COVID-19 testing. Even the recent federal order regarding vaccine mandates for private employers contemplates testing as a viable option. PJI represents Amtrak employees who have worked safely and followed COVID-19 safety protocols for well over twenty months since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. No evidence suggests that continuing in this work environment will place other employees or passengers at a higher risk. The risk is potentially much lower now because, as stated by Amtrak CEO William J. Flynn, 88.2 percent of Amtrak workers are already fully vaccinated. Amtrak employees with granted medical accommodations are permitted to remain working on-site in their current positions, yet it appears that none of the employees with granted religious accommodations are allowed to remain in the workplace. "Amtrak is treating its employees who have requested a religious accommodation differently than those employees who have requested a medical accommodation," stated PJI President Brad Dacus. "An 'accommodation' of indefinite unpaid leave, or basically being fired, is wholly unreasonable and unacceptable. We cannot stand idly by and watch strong people of faith have their religious rights deprived." stated PJI President Brad Dacus.

Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter | Forward this Email  Share this news on social media:         Copyright © 2021 Pacific Justice Institute, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in to follow Pacific Justice Institute. Our mailing address is: Pacific Justice Institute P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827 Add us to your address book