Black Lives Matter Is Anti-Christian (Part 2)

(PART ONE is linked as well as PART 1.6)

Black Lives Matter is now protesting churches in New York!

Here is a sermon that a mentor sent me — keep in mind there is a volume warning, the pastor is impassioned at times (via FACEBOOK):

God’s Law or Chaos (Anti-Christian PART 1.6)

(This is PART ONE POINT SIX of an “anti-Christian” series. PART ONE and TWO can be viewed, respectively)

Watch this powerful new sermon from Apologia Church. Dr. James White and Jeff Durbin both preach to the congregation about the recent events, #BlackLivesMatter, #Marxism, and #Communism. Don’t miss this vitally important message and be sure to tell someone about it!

What’s so controversial about Black Lives Matter? Shouldn’t everyone, especially Christians, agree with this phrase? Of course. Unfortunately, though, it’s much deeper than simply a phrase or statement. Black Lives Matter is an organization that Christians need to understand, especially when it comes to this important question: should Christians support Black Lives Matter?

The N.E.A. and B.L.M. Promotes Anti-Americanism/Racism

FLASHBACK with “the Hammer”

These two article should be read in union with this post regarding education: “Educayshun (Updated w/White Privilege)

Two Must Read Articles, the first by THE WASHINGTON TIMES:

(Hat-tip to BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE LIBERTY INSTITUTE)

The National Education Association (NEA) is aggressively promoting an anti-American, polarizing agenda that is the root of the current racial divisions and rioting. They do this using clever messaging and The New York Times’ much-ballyhooed “1619 Project,” which intentionally perverts American history. 

Times writers weave a twisted tale in which the evil of slavery so pervades the American experiment that literally nothing about our history isn’t motivated by some racist need to preserve the intentional subjugation, exploitation, marginalization and persecution of enslaved Africans.      

Don’t get me wrong; America’s history is undeniably stained by the dark evil of slavery.

But to rewrite American history as if slavery is the defining and motivating factor behind nearly every aspect of our national story is ludicrous. It’s also dangerous and unethical to reframe history this way; especially considering America confronted the immorality of slavery head-on and defeated it.

The 1619 Project claims slave-owning colonists and hateful bigots hell-bent on institutionalizing racism set the tenor for our nation in 1619. It deceptively obliterates our true inspiration — Christian pilgrims who escaped religious persecution in 1620, launching the freest, most God-honoring “love your neighbor” nation in world history.

“1619” is chock-full of revisionist history promoting racial division and white blame, claiming our founding ideals were a lie purposefully told so whites could enslave blacks to get rich from an evil capitalist system. All this slander promoted by activists posing as journalists, educators and scholars is presented 155 years after hundreds of thousands of Americans (most of them white) gave their lives in the Civil War precisely to put an end to slavery.

It’s no wonder so many historians called out the NYT, but it’s revealing that the NEA did not.

Instead, the NEA coordinated directly with The New York Times, the Pulitzer Center, Southern Poverty Law Center and Black Lives Matter to put 1619 into the hands of educators and activists. Their goal? To assert a false but preferred narrative to advance a political agenda.

To legitimize their tales, the author of 1619 won the Pulitzer Prize, and the NEA praised 1619, saying it “informs and challenges us to reframe U.S. history and better understand the hold of institutional racism on our communities.” The NEA also launched “Black Lives Matter Week of Action” in America’s schools to train our K-12 children, college students and educators in their narrative.

Again, don’t get me wrong. Black lives do matter! Indeed, every human life is sacred. But the organization named Black Lives Matter is not what it claims to be. Like the unions, it’s a Trojan horse of anti-American, anti-family beliefs masquerading as defenders of good. 

Now Americans are terrorized by rioters who believe these anti-American narratives, while the NEA quietly launches 1619 and its historical distortions into the history curricula of schools nationwide — virtually unchallenged. 

America’s students are taught that the American Revolution was fought not to secure freedom from a tyrannical British Empire, but singularly to protect the institution of slavery. 

This ignorance of reality and true history is a major weapon in their arsenal, and they’re pushing a raft of new pseudo-realities onto our culture, too. 

No longer is gender defined by science or our Creator; it’s “fluid.” 

No longer are environmental claims based on strict adherence to the scientific method; weak theories and hysterical “consensus” rule. 

No longer are families seen as the center of a strong society, nor are children expected to obey or respect authority; “willful defiance” reigns while adults cower under the rule of child tyrants. 

No longer is history determined by fact; instead, it’s reframed to support a constant assault on our Judeo-Christian culture. 

That’s why union activists work behind the scenes ensuring this rubbish from The New York Times passes as approved history curriculum; against the will of good teachers. While The Times stirs up conflict, Black Lives Matter protests attract rioters inciting recurring fear and distraction, and the Pulitzer Center legitimizes 1619, the unions and their coalition stealthily indoctrinate our children and flip our nation’s history on its head. ….

(READ THE REST)

The next article should be paired with this recent post as well: BLM Is Anti-Christian (BONUS: Carol Swain | Larry Elder)

In a video from 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors confesses to being a “trained organizer” and a “trained Marxist,” validating claims the global group might be a radical left-wing organization designed to pander to modern multicultural permutations of Marxist ideology.

Cullors is one of the Black Lives Matter movement’s co-founders, a queer activist, and has advocated for the abolition of prisons.

In the shortened 2015 clip taken from an interview for The Real News Network, Cullors says, “I think of a lot of things: The first thing I think of is that we actually do have an ideology frame.”

 
She continues, “Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories, and I think what we really try to do is build a movement that can be utilized by many, many black folk.”

The second comes from THE FEDERALIST:

Remember that Black Lives Matter BlackLivesMatter Pays Homage to Marxist Cop Killer at Every Event It Holds. Here is the Federalist article:

….One recent derivative of this assertion is, “You can’t be Christian unless you affirm that black lives matter.” On the surface, it seems obvious that to properly represent a position that states all men are created in the image of God you would, indeed, need to affirmatively declare black lives matter.

Our Christian faith requires we believe in the intrinsic value of all life. Love for our fellow man is the motivation for promoting life-affirming culture. If our black brothers and sisters feel they’ve been disenfranchised, addressing this carefully is paramount to getting to the truth and healing wounds. Loving and supporting black people’s goal of equity in opportunity is vital for those who hope to see a universal acceptance of the sanctity of all life. As hashtag advocacy goes, #BlackLivesMatter seems self-evident and as nonpartisan as declaring #MeToo if you’re a sexual assault survivor.

But while BLM the organization declares their movement a “natural phenomenon” and its organization decentralized, the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter was intentionally marketed to a specific cause. As such, we must be cautious to clarify that affirming “black lives matter” is different than supporting Black Lives Matter, the 501 (c)(3), its chapters, and its partners.

Christians should limit our use of popular hashtags — primarily #BlackLivesMatter and #HandsUpDontShoot — to share messages regarding equality. Hashtag advocacy leads back to the organizations that create the hashtags. In this case, it means directing friends and family to an overt effort to fundamentally remake the world with socialist ideas—ideas that often directly contradict the message of the gospel.

The Origin of Black Lives Matter

Black Lives Matter began as a social media hashtag intended to bring attention to the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot by George Zimmerman. The words were a desperate cry for justice. As arguments regarding white supremacy and gun control policy dominated the airwaves, black women were burying their sons. In a country that believed it had finally broken the race barrier, electing our first black president just a few years before, this contradiction was unacceptable.

In her famous 2013 “Love Letter to Black People,” Black Lives Matter founder and community organizer Alicia Garza wrote: “I continue to be surprised at how little black lives matter.” Her friend and fellow organizer, Patrisse Kahn Cullors, created the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Another organizer friend, Opal Tometi, saw the marketing potential, purchased the domain name, and created a social media presence. The three formed the official Black Lives Matter Network after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Since July 2013, Black Lives Matter has grown to 40 chapters worldwide, with 16 located in America. Famous faces and influencers like John Legend, Chrissy Teigen, and Beyoncé Knowles openly support and promote BLM. As a movement, it is here to stay. Yet despite its seeming newness, Black Lives Matter is just part of a movement that has been in existence for decades under different names.

BLM Founders Openly Support Socialism

While it’s considered lazy scholarship to declare those who have left politics “socialist,” all three founders of the Black Lives Matter movement have openly shared their desires to end capitalism. In their online articles, videos, and interviews, all three allude to concepts that originate in socialism, communism, or Marxism.

Garza started her organizing career working in abortion advocacy before moving on to groups like NDWASOUL, and POWER—which merged with CJJC in 2014, and RTTC—all of which focus on worker and housing activism via anti-capitalist activism.

Cullors works in jail and policing activism as the founder of Dignity and Power Now. Her philosophy rests on the concept of prison abolition and reparations in financial compensation and land redistribution. She promotes BDS—the leftist, antisemitic boycott, divest, and sanction movement—both as a signatory to public statements supporting Palestinians and in articles she’s written. She speaks eloquently about “peoples-led socialist movements” in South America and once was “mentored” by Eric Mann, a former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terrorism organization.

Opal Tometi focuses almost exclusively on immigration activism. She has spoken at Left Forum events, shared a stage with Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro, and helped oversee “fair” elections in Venezuela in 2015.

Virtually all of the spaces Black Lives Matter and its founders inhabit are associated with leftist or openly socialist worker’s movements. All three women have spoken at Left Forum, a think tank for socialists, which engages high-profile communists, socialists, and Marxists as keynote speakers. Speakers include luminaries such as Marxist Silvia Federici and Frances Fox Piven.

Black Lives Matter has sponsored town hall meetings with leftist extremists even the leftist agitation group Southern Poverty Law Center finds objectionable. They’ve written touching eulogies for mass murderers who brutally suppressed Christianity.

They’ve recreated narratives to characterize a law enforcement officer as inherently aggressive and deceptive, even when forensics have shown their position to be inaccurate. While I agree that criminal justice reforms are needed, BLM’s misleading coverage forced the police officer involved in the Brown shooting to go into hiding due to death threats. Although we’re six years removed from 2014, he remains in hiding…..

(READ IT ALL)

BLM Is Anti-Christian (BONUS: Carol Swain | Larry Elder)

(This is PART ONE, PART 1.6 and PART 2 are in those links)

This is from Church Militant, and while they focus on anti-Catholicism, one should mind that many of the cultural Marxist positions are in fact just anti-Judeo-Christian… I will follow their excellent video with some Carol Swain.

Here is a 2019 C-PAC interview of Carol Swain and her thoughts on Cultural Marxism.

Identity politics has done little to resolve the grievances of minorities in the United States. Rather a group of individuals is pushing socialist policy to manipulate people for political power. Carol Swain, a political scientist, author, and political commentator, explains the cultural Marxist roots of identity politics, and the harm it has caused black Americans, in a recent interview with The Epoch Times, noting “this socialism that’s on display now, it’s been underground for a long time.”

In taking classes at seminary, one of my professors was Ray D. Arnold… he was one of the 1,000 missionaries that General MacArthur called to go to Japan at the conclusion of WWII. One blog notes this about the endeavor:

  • Perhaps General MacArthur didn’t succeed in bringing Christianity to Japan in the institutional sense.  But he did bring mercy, forgiveness and respect for human dignity–the heart of Christianity–and these the Japanese graciously accepted.

All that to say, taking his classes he used material that was older, and this excerpt expands Dr. Swain’s mention of the churches being impacted by cultural Marxism (social-justice):

As Dr. Carl F. H. Henry pointed out: “The Chicago evangelicals, while seeking to overcome the polarization of concern in terms of personal evangelism or social ethics, also transcended the neo­Protestant nullification of the Great Commission.” “The Chicago Declaration did not leap from a vision of social utopia to legislation specifics, but concentrated first on biblical priorities for social change.” “The Chicago evangelicals did not ignore transcendent aspects of God’s Kingdom, nor did they turn the recognition of these elements into a rationalization of a theology of revolutionary violence or of pacifistic neutrality in the face of blatant militarist aggression.” (Cf. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, “Evangelical Social Concern” Christianity Today, March 1, 1974.) The evangelical social concern is transcendental not merely horizontal.

We must make it clear that the true revolutionaries are different from the frauds who “deal only with surface phenomena. They seek to remove a deep-seated tumor from society by applying a plaster to the surface. The world’s deepest need today is not something that merely dulls the pain, but something that goes deep in order to change the basic unity of society, man himself. Only when men individually have experienced a change and reorientation, can society be redirected in the way it should go. This we cannot accomplish by either violence or legislation” (cf. Reid: op. cit.). Social actions, without a vertical and transcendental relation with God only create horizontal anxieties and perplexities!

Furthermore, the social activists are in fact ignorant of the social issues, they are not experts in the social sciences. They simply demand an immediate change or destruction of the social structures, but provide no blueprint of the new society whatsoever! They can be likened to the fool, as a Chinese story tells, who tried to help the plant grow faster by pulling it higher. Of course such “action” only caused the plant to wither and die. This is exactly what the social radicals are doing now! And the W.C.C. is supporting such a tragic course!

We must challenge them [secular social activists] to discern the difference between the true repentance and “social repentance.” The Bible says: “For the godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret; but worldly grief produces death” (II Cor. 7:10). This was the bitter experiences of many former Russian Marxists, who, after their conversion to Christ came to understand that they had only a sort of “social repentance”—a sense of guilt before the peasant and the proletariat, but not before God. They admitted that “A Russian (Marxist) intellectual as an individual is often a mild and loving creature, but his creed (Marxism) constrains him to hate” (cf. Nicolas Zernov: The Russian Religious Renaissance). “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10,23). A complete change of a society must come from man himself, for basically man is at enmity with God. All humanistic social, economic and political systems are but “cut flowers,” as Dr. Trueblood put it, even the best are only dim reflections of the Glory of the Kingdom of God. As Benjamin Franklin in his famous address to the Constitutional Convention, said, “Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” Without reconciliation with God, there is no reconciliation with man. Social action is not evangelism; political liberation is not salvation. While we shall by all means have deep concern on social issues; nevertheless, social activism shall never be a substitution for the Gospel.

Lit-sen Chang, The True Gospel vs. Social Activism, (booklet. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co: 1976), 9.

Dr. Arnold’s classes ended up being my favorite… his background in the missions and apologetics of responding to Eastern thought were very impactful. CONTINUING… more from Dr. Swain:

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

She also talks about the “PARTY SWITCHING MYTH” I have much more on that in my post here: Did The Party’s Switch?And so, we see this is the same all throughout the Left’s history:

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” ~ Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” ~ Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites? Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, explains.

It was not until the Republican Revolution of 1994 that for the first time in modern American History the Republicans held a majority of Southern congressional seats, a full three decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the South became less racist, it became more Republican (NATIONAL REVIEW).

We should round out the above with this longer presentation by Larry Elder:

As part of CCA III: The Sixties, Larry Elder, host of The Larry Elder Show, gives a lecture at Hillsdale College on the development of the Civil Rights Movement.

Pete Buttigieg’s “Hypocrisy” Claim Irked Prager

  • It is odd that someone whose own faith would have been called into question until quite recently for a lifestyle that directly contradicts traditional Christian principles would dare to question anyone else’s commitment, doing unto others precisely what he would not have done unto him. — JOEL POLLAK

I did edit the longer audio a bit to seam it together well. It is some good commentary [after I edited it of course]. Here is a bit of an intro from PJ-MEDIA:

Mayor Pete (as the fawning media has dubbed him) called evangelicals who support Trump hypocrites. “Here you have somebody who not only acts in a way that is not consistent with anything that I hear in scripture or in church, where it’s about lifting up the least among us and taking care of strangers, which is another word for immigrants,” Buttigieg said, “and making sure that you’re focusing your effort on the poor. But also personally, how you’re supposed to conduct yourself. Not chest thumping look-at-me-ism, but humbling yourself before others.”

[….]

Let’s put aside for a moment Buttegeig’s reductionist definition of Christianity — a truncated version that leaves out the bits about sin, repentance, and judgment….

MATT SLICK discusses this section of Leviticus well… the rest of the article past this excerpt is excellent (See also his, “Why Did God Make Me Gay?“):

Lev. 18:22

  • ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (NASB)
  • “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (ESV, NKJV)

Clearly, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality.  What else does it mean when it says “you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female”?  The term “lie with” here refers to sexual intercourse in the phrase “lie with a male as one lies with a female.”  It is an abomination.  The word here is תֹּועֵבָה towʿebahtoʿebah.

117 occurrences; AV translates as “abomination” 113 times, “abominable thing” twice, and “abominable” twice. 1 a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable. 1a in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages). 1b in ethical sense (of wickedness etc. ).1

Lev. 20:13

  • “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (NASB)
  • “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (ESV)

The word “detestable” is the same Hebrew word found in Lev. 18:22, “abomination.”

There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death.  But we might ask, why such harsh penalty for a simple “sexual orientation”? The answer lies in the overall context in which the Old Testament is written.  God had promised the Messiah who would be the Savior, the Deliverer of people from the judgment of God.  If homosexuality was to run rampant, it would threaten the arrival of the Messiah and thereby make God’s Word invalid (essentially making God a liar), and this cannot be.  Since God works through people, he provided the harshness of the law in order to guard people from their own sins, the sins of others, and ultimately provide a way by which the Messiah would come and die on the cross for our sins. 

Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come, and we are not under a theocratic governmental system.  Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals.  We are to pray for them and their repentance, so they might find salvation in Christ…..

 

The War On “Merry Christmas” [Christmas]

(Here is a different version of the above.) Should Americans wish each other “Happy holidays” or “Merry Christmas”? Should an office “Christmas party” be called a “holiday party” so that it’s more inclusive? Dennis Prager answers these questions and more in this short video. (More Prager: Most Jews Wish You a Merry ChristmasNot saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is hurtful to most of your fellow Americans | ‘Merry Christmas’ to All!

Some past posts regarding anti-Christmas/anti-Christian motifs:

 

 

The New Morality | State Religion

Albert Mohler’s [important] Briefing from 4-20-18. My previous post on this is entitled: “California Wants To Curtail Free Speech.” Usually I grab a smaller clip from THE BRIEFING, but this is an attack on our faith that needs full attention. Here is the descriptions from the shows segments:

  • California set to enact legislation barring sale of any books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs on sexuality (NATIONAL REVIEW has an important article on this “wind change.”)
  • Christians no longer welcome? What’s really behind the line of questioning in a Senate committee hearing (Dennis Prager discusses Cory’s TOTALITARIANISM)
  • Army chaplain under fire after refusing to facilitate a marriage retreat for same-sex couples (Here is the ARMY TIMES article)

THE FEDERALIST has an important article on the matter as well. The entire article is worth spending some time with over a cup of joe:

FactCheck.org has joined Snopes as another sneaky liar with their article on Apr. 25 entitled “California Bill Wouldn’t Ban the Bible.” Although per the “Editor’s note,” “FactCheck.org describes itself is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false stories,” it is not without its left-wing biases.

Article author Angelo Fichera claims that California Assembly Bill 2943 has no bearing on the sale not only of the Bible but also of any Christian book that makes the case, in whole or part, for orientation, identity, or behavior change. Although Fichera asserts claims about AB 2943 banning books “are indeed not supported by the language in the legislation,” he does not actually analyze the contents of the bill.

The extent of his “research” is to cite a tweet from the bill’s author, California assemblyman Evan Low, and an email from attorney Anthony J. Samson, a registered state lobbyist who “provided Low with technical assistance on the bill.” Another quote from Samson is now offered in the updated Snopes article.

Low and Samson are hardly impartial sources. They have a vested interest in getting the bill passed into law before massive opposition can galvanize. FactCheck.org never bothered to do the most basic investigative work of all: “factcheck” the bill’s author and his assisting attorney in relation to the language of AB 2943.

FactCheck-org would never take Donald Trump’s or Jeff Sessions’s word for what a certain anti-immigration bill of theirs says. So why does FactCheck-org take the word of Low and Samson about what AB 2943 allegedly says, particularly since it appears to be at odds with the wording of the bill?

[….]

Bill’s Author Agrees It Can Apply to Churches

Now let’s go back and see how the bill’s actual wording applies to Low and Samson’s remarks. Low’s first comment in his tweet is a devastating new admission: “A church or individual may still practice conversion therapy if they do so without charging for this fraudulent service.” The flipside of this statement is that “a church or individual” cannot “practice conversion therapy” if there is a charge for the service.

Contrary to what many supporters of the bill have been saying, the bill’s application extends beyond mental health professionals (note that the Snopes article claims this is unclear). There is no exemption for religious instruction. We now have confirmation from AB 2943’s author that the bill would indeed apply “to a pastor, Bible study or house church leader, member of a parachurch organization working to help people afflicted by same-sex attractions, or indeed anybody who attempts change if goods or services involve an exchange of funds.”

AB 2493’s wording does not support Low’s second statement: “It does not ban bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would have you believe.” The only way that such a statement, particularly the second half, could be true is if the sale of a book were not included as “a transaction which results in the sale of goodsto any consumer” or did not come under the heading of “selling a financial product.” It is difficult to see how that could be the case.

For example, the California government’s own guide to “Understanding California’s Sales Tax” gives as its first example of how “sales tax . . . depends on the tax rate and the dollar value of the goods sold” that of a retailer who “sells five books costing $20 each” at a tax rate of 8 percent (my emphases). There is no puzzling over whether the sale of “books” could count as a sale of “goods.” It’s obvious.

“Goods” are broadly defined in AB 2943 as “tangible [movable] chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” By what rationale, then, can Low claim the sale of books is excluded from the bill’s designation “sale of goods”? If Low were so concerned to exclude book sales from his bill, he would have to have excluded “books” from the category of “goods” explicitly…..

The New York Times Best Seller List IS #FakeNews

The New York Times best seller list really isn’t that. What it is is merely an editorial “what you should read, not what actually sells the best.”

The NYT’s even had the audacity (or the lack of self awareness in their egalitarianism aims) to publish a graph of the male and female authors by decade. It showed a clear male dominance over the women. However, as the decades progressed, the sexes got closer to being even, until, the final decade in the graph, they were very similar in books on the New York Times best seller listing.

But this graph, then, is merely an illusion. Since they control the list and who makes it on the list — they can control whichever factors they wish to. Like gender for instance. So they can even out the sexes on the list to give the appearance that male and female authors are writing and selling great books, equally. It does not reflect reality. Nor does this “evening-out process” have anything to say about how well something is written. It merely projects what the few editors think is important to the New York Times.

The majority of authors are — I presume — white. So soon a similar graph will surely show an evening out of minority vs. Caucasian authors.


Facebook “Convo”


I posted a link to this article discussing Trump’s foreign policy advancements as compared to Obama’s in regard to “Nobel Peace Prizes.” Here is part of the article:

North and South Korea are discussing plans to make a stunning announcement at their leaders summit next week: a permanent end to the 68-year state of war between the two, according to reports.

North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in may release a joint statement saying they will seek to end military conflict, an unidentified Seoul official told the Munhwa Ilbo newspaper, Bloomberg reported.

The two men are scheduled to meet April 27 in the border village of Panmunjon — the third-ever summit of leaders from the two Koreas.

Pyongyang and Seoul have technically been at war since the 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended with a truce. Despite occasional flare-ups between the two nations in the years since the armistice, the two Koreas have managed to avoid an all-out war.

A successful summit could pave the way for a historic meeting between Kim and President Trump — the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader….

Later we find out that Pompeo met with the North over Easter weekend. A person simply said “Wow…..” MIND YOU, I am reading a lot into his “Wow,” but here is my response to the larger issue:

You do realize people like myself do not really want Trump to get the Nobel Prize in Peace, but what is being intimated by the article (OP) is that Obama got his just eight and a half months in the White House.

The prize was nothing more, then, than Leftist panels awarding a Leftist person they idealized with a hopeful fiction.

(In fact, all of Leftism is an idealization of a Utopian dream. A “Super Man” in the “Nietzsch’ian sense”… genderless, able to offend no one, always concerned for the welfare of others in the market place, etc. REALLY THEN, a pipe-dream but one enforced by legislative acts. Dangerous in other words.)

It is similar, then, to the NYTs posting this graphic as if it means something (https://tinyurl.com/y9jck4x3). Since the NYT Best Seller list are really editorial choices and not based on the reality of “which books actually sell the best,” their being proud of an evening-out of male-to-female authors is meaningless. (Unless you live in a bubble: SNL – https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI)

It is a form of self-gratification, or as David French calls them, the “New Holy Rollers.” That is, “social justice warriors.” The NYT sees themselves as such in creating a fictitious reality in order to fool people with what is really an illusion that says nothing of literary excellence.

You see, when you believe you are morally superior, when you have dehumanized those you disagree with, you can justify almost anything.

Like giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a person who will hold to an illusory ideal created whole cloth from nothing.

So, if that is the standard

then

the Trump administration has already surpassed it. As we found out with the meeting over the Easter weekend. Ultimately nothing may come of it, but it is more “hope and change” to the real world than what Obama had “accomplished.”

THAT is the point.

Anti-Christian Cal State “Religion in America” Course

This was a caller from 2014, and he relays to Dennis Prager a “Religion in America” course through a Cal State University (unnamed) and the bias expressed in these courses via it’s guest speakers. I wrote a chapter in my book on CSUN’s bias in this regard via a “Women In Religious History” course.

Winning – Obama-Care/UNESCO/Regulations/Courts/Christmas

Apparently in many arenas, Trump has come to kick ass AND chew bubble gum… but he seems to be out of bubble gum!

The WASHINGTON TIMES writes about the above FOX NEWS statement:

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Friday that President Trump is “systematically” removing hundreds of regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

“The president has already knocked out some 860 rules and regulations from the Obama administration, and every day we’re finding more and more to do. Remember, Obama put in something like 7,000 new rules and regulations just in the last two years he was in office,” Mr. Ross said on Fox Business.

When asked what types of regulations Mr. Trump was removing — whether oil and gas, environmental or banking — the secretary responded, “All of the above.”

“You would think the American public was a wild and woolly place two years earlier to require 7,000 new rules. But the president is systematically removing them, changing them, getting rid of them. And I think we’ll beat his formula of two reductions for one increase,” he said….

The article from Kimberley Strassel that Prager was reading from in the second half of the audio above is locked behind the WALL STREET JOURNAL’S pay wall, but here is the entire article (via INVESTOR VILLAGE) from which I excerpt from:

Scalias All The Way Down — While The Press Goes Wild Over Tweets, Trump Is Remaking The Federal Judiciary

Ask most Republicans to identify Donald Trump’s biggest triumph to date, and the answer comes quick: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. That’s the cramped view.

The media remains so caught up with the president’s tweets that it has missed Mr. Trump’s project to transform the rest of the federal judiciary. The president is stocking the courts with a class of brilliant young textualists bearing little relation to even their Reagan or Bush predecessors. Mr. Trump’s nastygrams to Bob Corker will be a distant memory next week. Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett’s influence on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could still be going strong 40 years from now.

Mr. Trump has now nominated nearly 60 judges, filling more vacancies than Barack Obama did in his entire first year. There are another 160 court openings, allowing Mr. Trump to flip or further consolidate conservative majorities on the circuit courts that have the final say on 99% of federal legal disputes.

This project is the work of Mr. Trump, White House Counsel Don McGahn and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Every new president cares about the judiciary, but no administration in memory has approached appointments with more purpose than this team.

Mr. Trump makes the decisions, though he’s taking cues from Mr. McGahn and his team. The Bushies preferred a committee approach: Dozens of advisers hunted for the least controversial nominee with the smallest paper trail. That helped get picks past a Senate filibuster, but it led to bland choices, or to ideological surprises like retired Justice David Souter.

Harry Reid’s 2013 decision to blow up the filibuster for judicial nominees has freed the Trump White House from having to worry about a Democratic veto during confirmation. Mr. McGahn’s team (loaded with former Clarence Thomas clerks) has carte blanche to work with outside groups like the Federalist Society to tap the most conservative judges.

Mr. McGahn has long been obsessed with constitutional law and the risks of an all-powerful administrative state. His crew isn’t subjecting candidates to 1980s-style litmus tests on issues like abortion. Instead the focus is on promoting jurists who understand the unique challenges of our big-government times. Can the prospective nominee read a statute? Does he or she defer to the government’s view of its own authority? The result has been a band of young rock stars and Scalia-style textualists like Ms. Barrett, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett and Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice David Stras.

Senate Republicans have so far blown their major agenda items, but they’ve remained unified on judges. They agreed to kill the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees so as to confirm Justice Gorsuch; have confirmed six other judicial nominees; and stand ready to greenlight dozens more. This is a big shift from divisions the party had over the Bush 41 and Bush 43 nominees…..

Trump is also doing some culture battle stuff in regard to Christmas:

CNN notes the speech by Trump in this battle of ideas:

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump dove into America’s culture wars on Friday, touting his administration for “returning moral clarity to our view of the world” and ending “attacks on Judeo-Christian values.”

Trump, nine months into his presidency, has found it harder to get things done than the ease with which he made promises on the campaign trail, making speeches to adoring audiences like Friday’s in Washington key to boosting the President’s morale. And the audience at the Values Voter Summit, an annual socially conservative conference, didn’t fail to deliver.

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump said to applause, before slamming people who don’t say “Merry Christmas.”

“They don’t use the word Christmas because it is not politically correct,” Trump said, complaining that department stores will use red and Christmas decorations but say “Happy New Year.” “We’re saying Merry Christmas again.”

The comment drew thunderous applause.

Heated debates over the “War On Christmas” have raged for years, with many on the right complaining that political correctness has made it less acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Trump has seized on these feelings, regularly telling primarily religious audiences that his presidency has made it acceptable to “start saying Merry Christmas again.”…..