Stupid on Facebook 2019.12.29

Every Christmas, Leftists twist Scripture to convince ignorant Christians to support Leftist causes. This year was no exception. 

According to Leftists, Joseph, Mary and Jesus were illegal aliens seeking refuge in Egypt, so if you support securing your country's borders, and enforcing immigration law, you're just as evil as Herod, who murdered every male child in Bethlehem under the age of two.

If you're an ignorant Christian, who doesn't read the Bible, knows little or nothing about history, and confuses feelings with critical thinking, you might be taken in by such sophistry. So, let's apply some critical thought, supported by Biblical, and historical facts to the claim, shall we?

Joseph did, in fact, take Mary and Jesus from Bethlehem (in Judea) to Egypt.

Matthew 2:13 Now when they [the Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” 

14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

If you know anything about history, you can immediately see the problems with the Leftist narrative of the Christmas story.

Both Judea, and Egypt were part of the Roman Empire. Moving from Judea to Egypt was analogous to moving from California to Nevada. Joseph, Mary and Jesus never even left the political jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, and there was definitely nothing illegal about it.

When Herod died, Joseph moved Mary and Jesus back out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15), to Galilee, which was also a Roman province.

So, if your claim is that the Nativity story is prescriptive (tells us what to do), and not descriptive (tells us what happened), an honest person would conclude that persecuted people should legally move to a safer place within their own political jurisdiction, and leave that place as soon as the danger no longer exists.

But that's not what Leftists are selling, is it? That's because Leftists are liars.

Does the Bible tell us how we should treat immigrants, and refugees? Yes, it does.

First, the Bible tells us that nations are God's idea.

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel. 

Job 12:23 He makes nations great, and destroys them;
He enlarges nations, and guides them. 

Acts 12:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Second, the Bible tells us to respect boundaries.

Deuteronomy 19:14 You shall not remove your neighbor’s boundary stone, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. 

Deuteronomy 27:17 ‘Cursed is the one who moves his neighbor’s boundary stone.’
“And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ 

Proverbs 22:28 Do not remove the ancient boundary stone
Which your fathers have set.

"But that's talking about individuals' property", you say? Why would respecting a neighboring country's boundaries be any different than respecting your individual neighbors' boundaries? If trespassing onto another person's property is immoral, what makes trespassing onto another person's country moral?

Third, the Bible commands us to obey the law.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

I see no exemptions for immigration law. Do you?

Nations and their boundaries are real things, established by God, who commands us to respect boundaries, and obey the law. Which means that, if we want to immigrate to another country, we must do so legally. If we are denied entry, we must respect the boundaries, and the law of the land we're trying to enter.

So, how should we treat immigrants among us?

Exodus 22:21 You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 

Exodus 23:9 Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 

Leviticus 24:22 You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God. 

Deuteronomy 24:17 You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow’s garment as a pledge. 

Deuteronomy 27:19 ‘Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’

Leftists love to quote those verses, especially the last two, but think about it. What is the justice due to a stranger who violates the laws of the land by entering the country illegally?

Deportation certainly seems like a reasonable measure of justice due, doesn't it?

Christians; read the Bible. The whole Bible. Stop ignoring the Scriptures you don't like.

Another One Bites the Dust

Following closely on Josh Harris's heels (see here, here, and here), Marty Sampson, a song writer for Hillsong, announced on Instagram that he too is losing his faith. Mr. Sampson has since deleted his Instagram post, but other sources saved it, so here is the text, with some of my commentary.

Time for some real talk. I’m genuinely losing my faith, and it doesn’t bother me. Like, what bothers me now is nothing.

When a 40-year-old man writes or speaks like a valley girl, that always sends up a red flag in my mind.

I am so happy now, so at peace with the world. It’s crazy. 

This is a soapbox moment so here I go … How many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it.

What? "No one talks about it"? Does this guy not have access to the internet? How does he post on Instagram? I searched for "when pastors fall", and found all kinds of articles and sermons on the subject. More importantly, Jesus talked about it, the Apostles talked about it. What is this guy talking about?

How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it.

Again, does this guy not have access to the internet? I searched for "modern day miracles", and "miracles in the modern era", and found plenty of articles and sermons. Furthermore, few miracles happened in the Bible. There were only a few people in the Bible around whom miracles abounded - Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and the Apostles. Outside of their ministries, oftentimes hundreds of years passed between miracles. 

Besides, if "not many" miracles happen, then that means some miracles do happen. How many miracles does Mr. Sampson need to believe? Does Mr. Sampson think God owes him miracles? The Pharisees demanded miracles from Jesus. He had an answer for them, too.

Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it.

Again, where has this guy been? Here's a link devoted entirely to that subject. Pretty much every time I talk to an unbeliever about the Bible, he/she claims the Bible is "full of contradictions". When I ask them to name one, the answer is almost always, "uhhhh........ ". On the rare occasion that they can actually name one, I've always been able to resolve it for them.

That doesn't mean that I'm capable of resolving every apparent "contradiction" in the Bible, but it does mean that Mr. Sampson hasn't done the work necessary to understand the Bible. I'm not a church elder. Mr. Sampson is. Shouldn't he be better prepared than I am? I'd be embarrassed if Mr. Sampson was more knowledgeable about engineering than I am, because engineering is my profession. Mr. Sampson is a professional church elder. Why am I better prepared than he is?

How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all ‘coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it.

Are you kidding me? Everyone talks about this! It's one of the most common questions unbelievers ask! For crying out loud, man! Use a search engine!

I could give Mr. Sampson a much longer answer, but here's a short one. Yes, God is love (1 John 4:8), but God is also just, and justice means giving people what they've earned, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Wages are what one earns. We've all earned death. And the second death is eternal separation from God in the one place where God's presence cannot be perceived (Revelation 20:14).

In other words, God will not only giving people what they earned, He will give them what they want - an existence without God.

Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet -

So, Marty Sampson has judged that "Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet", and Marty Sampson has judged that being judgmental is a very bad thing. Does that about cover it?

- they can also be some of the most beautiful and loving people. But it’s not for me. 

I am not in any more. I want genuine truth. Not the “I just believe it” kind of truth.

Oh, you mean the kind of truth that the Apostle Peter referred to when he (really, the Holy Spirit) commanded you to "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"? (1 Peter 3:15) You mean that kind of truth?

Why doesn't Mr. Sampson already have that kind of truth? He's 40 years old, and a professional church elder. How did he ever get there without even knowing what he believes, or why he believes it?

Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion.

Again; where's this guy been? Mr. Sampson is, of course, referring to evolution. If you have time, please watch the following video from a non-religious source.

Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God. Got so much more to say, but for me, I keeping it real. Unfollow if you want, I’ve never been about living my life for others. 

That certainly explains a lot. 

All I know is what’s true to me right now, and Christianity just seems to me like another religion at this point. I could go on, but I won’t. Love and forgive absolutely.

Why? 

Be kind absolutely.

Why? 

Be generous and do good to others absolutely.

Why? 

Some things are good no matter what you believe.

Says who? Define "good". How does one measure "good"? By what standard? Why that standard, and not some other standard?

Let the rain fall, the sun will come up tomorrow.

Mr. Sampson's muddled, garbled, self-centered theology is precisely the problem with churches like Hillsong that focus on emotion above solid doctrinal teaching. When Mr. Sampson says over and over again, "no one talks about it", I suspect that he means "Hillsong never talks about it", because as I've demonstrated, plenty of people are talking about the difficult questions of faith.

Second, as I pointed out in my series about Josh Harris, in the books of Titus and 1 Timothy, the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, gave us the qualifications for a church elder. Like Josh Harris, Marty Sampson fails miserably to meet those qualifications. Why was he ever made an elder?

Because Hillsong's leadership doesn't actually believe the Bible.

And that leads us to the real problem.

Churches like Hillsong don't preach the Jesus of the Bible. They preach Buddy Christ. Mr. Sampson said that he has "never been about living my life for others". Buddy Christ approves, but the Jesus of the Bible says "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 16:24-25)

Jesus spoke the truth, because He is The Truth, but the truth doesn't fill stadiums with adoring fans. It never has. In John 6, Jesus preached a harsh message that deeply offended the people who followed Him. Please read the whole thing here. Buddy Christ is never offensive. By contrast, this is how Jesus Christ reacted.

John 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" 

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” 

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

What will you do, Christian, when you read passages in God's Word that offed you? Because, I assure you, there are many.

Will you follow Josh Harris's, and Marty Sampson's examples, and spout nonsense about "my truth"?

Will you follow Hillsong's example and simply avoid those "offensive" passages?

Or, will you follow the Apostle Peter's example, and say to your Lord, "where else will I go? You alone have the words of eternal life." 

Buddy Christ

Why did I title my last post At Least He's Honest (For Now)? Why, "For Now"? Josh Harris wrote:

By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣

I don't know what that means, because it's so vague, probably deliberately so. But, here's what I think. I think Mr. Harris will eventually settle on his own version of Buddy Christ.



Buddy Christ is the counterfeit Jesus most modern Christians believe in, and most modern churches preach.

Buddy Christ is not your Lord. He's your buddy. Buddy Christ demands nothing from you. He gives you no commandments. And he absolutely, positively, never, ever judges you. Buddy Christ is "spiritual, not religious". He doesn't dwell on antiquated concepts like sin, except for racism. Buddy Christ doesn't care if you're sexually promiscuous, practice homosexuality, mutilate your body to make it look like that of the opposite sex, or murder your baby in womb. But, if you're a racist, or a Republican (same thing, right?), you're in big trouble with Buddy Christ.

Wait... didn't I say that Buddy Christ never, ever judges you? Doesn't accusing someone of racism sound judgmental? Isn't that a contradiction?

Well... sure. But reason is a racist, sexist tool of the white patriarchy, and Buddy Christ ain't down with that, man.

Buddy Christ is a Socialist, because Socialism is compassionate. Buddy Christ is basically your dope smoking, hippie, dorm resident adviser from college, who's been in college for eight years because he keeps changing his major, and never studies.

Buddy Christ is Crawl from Son in Law. 

Buddy Christ is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Buddy Christ is inclusive. Unless you're a racist. Then he excludes you, which would make him exclusive, if we were using reason, which is a racist, sexist tool of the white patriarchy, which is why Buddy Christ never uses reason.

The Jesus of the Bible says things like;

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

There are six absolute statements in that one sentence, and absolute statements always exclude everything that does not fit within the statement.

1. I am (no one else is)
2. the way (no other way)
3. the truth (no other truth)
4. the life (no other life)
5. No one comes to the Father (self explanatory) 
6. except through Me (through no one else)

If you want to get to God the Father through anyone but His Son, Jesus Christ (the one in the Bible, not your buddy); tough luck. You won't get there. You'll end up in the one place where God's presence cannot be perceived. In case you didn't know, that place is known as Hell. 

Don't believe me? That's probably because you've been listening to Buddy Christ, because Buddy Christ does say things that the Jesus of the Bible says, like;

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Awwwww..... isn't that sweet? Jesus didn't come here to condemn the world! Jesus is all about love.

Well... yeah. But, why do Christians always stop reading at verse 17? In verse 18, Jesus said;

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sounds awfully judgmental, and exclusive, doesn't it? In fact, if you'd like to know if your church preaches a version of Buddy Christ, ask yourself; whenever your pastor preaches from John 3, does he read John 3:18, or does he stop at John 3:17?

But wait, it gets better. Because Jesus also told The Parable of the Minas in Luke 19. Please read the whole thing, but I'll summarize it for you here.

Luke 19:11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’

Who is the nobleman who leaves to receive a kingdom, and will return? Obviously, that's Jesus - the Jesus of the Bible, not Buddy Christ. Let's skip ahead.

15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
........
22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant.....

....... 

27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”

Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? Not at all like Buddy Christ, is it? But, that is the Jesus of the Bible. In fact, that's Jesus speaking about Himself, and how He will behave when He returns. Note that He will have those who refuse to be ruled by Him slain before Him.

Jesus is not your buddy. He is your Lord. In fact, He is your Lord whether you recognize that fact, or not.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

You will bend the knee. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and atheist, an agnostic... it doesn't matter. You will bend the knee. And you will confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord.

What does it mean to confess? To confess is to admit something that is already true. It's already true that Jesus Christ is your Lord, whether you believe it or not.

You can either bend the knee, and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord now, voluntarily, or you can bend the knee, and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord at the judgement, involuntarily, like the enemies in the Parable of the Minas, who were slain before Him. The choice is yours.

Now, back to Josh Harris.

Jesus Christ is Josh Harris's Lord. That has always been true, and it will always be true. It was true back when Josh Harris believed it, it's true now that Josh Harris has repudiated faith in Jesus, and it will still be true no matter what Josh Harris does in the future.

Josh Harris wrote;

By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣

He's "not there now", but he can get there. How? By creating his own version of Buddy Christ.

You see, Jesus Christ is your Lord because He's your Creator, who created you in His image. Buddy Christ, by contrast, is your creation, whom you create in your own image. That's why he doesn't judge you. Josh Harris will likely create his own Buddy Christ, who believes everything that Josh Harris now believes, and changes his beliefs to match Josh Harris's beliefs as Josh Harris's beliefs change.

This is how the Bible describes a man who creates something, then worships it. Again, read the whole thing.

Isaiah 44:9 Those who make an image, all of them are useless,
And their precious things shall not profit;
They are their own witnesses;
They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed.
10 Who would form a god or mold an image
That profits him nothing?
........
14 He cuts down cedars for himself,
And takes the cypress and the oak;
He secures it for himself among the trees of the forest.
He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it.
.......
16 He burns half of it in the fire;
With this half he eats meat;
He roasts a roast, and is satisfied.
He even warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm,
I have seen the fire.”
17 And the rest of it he makes into a god,
His carved image.
He falls down before it and worships it,
Prays to it and says,
“Deliver me, for you are my god!”

Don't be a useless fool who worships a false Christ you created for yourself. Worship Jesus Christ, your Lord, the way, the truth, and the life, the only one who can take you to God the Father. You're going to worship Him eventually, whether you want to or not. You may as well worship Him voluntarily now.

At Least He's Honest (For Now)

On 17 July 2019, Josh Harris publicly declared that he is not a Christian. That's a good thing. He's being honest. He doesn't believe Jesus. For example, Josh Harris doesn't believe Jesus, when Jesus says that marriage is exclusively between a man and woman.

Here's what Josh Harris believes. 

Martin Luther said that the entire life of believers should be repentance. There’s beauty in that sentiment regardless of your view of God. I have lived in repentance for the past several years—repenting of my self-righteousness, my fear-based approach to life, the teaching of my books, my views of women in the church, and my approach to parenting to name a few. But I specifically want to add to this list now: to the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality. I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.⁣⁣

What does Josh Harris mean by "marriage equality"? He means that men should be allowed to "marry" men, and women should be allowed to "marry" women. What did Jesus say? 

Matthew 19:1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. 

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Josh Harris and his wife are divorcing. I don't know why they're divorcing, so I won't address that issue. Let's, instead, look more closely on how Jesus defined marriage. 

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a [singular] man [male] shall leave his [singular, male] father [singular, male] and mother [singular, female] and be joined to his [singular, male] wife [singular, female], and the two [one plus one equals two] shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two [one plus one equals two] but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus made that statement. Does that statement leave any room for LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender... queer? questioning? who knows?)? 

Jesus starts right out saying "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female'". In the very first sentence, Jesus repudiated transgenderism. Then, every noun and pronoun He used in the rest of His response, links one man to one woman for life. 

Jesus defined marriage as a union of one man with one woman for life. In other words, Jesus opposes that which Josh Harris refers to as "marriage equality". 

Josh Harris clearly believes Jesus' definition was not just wrong, or inaccurate, but downright sinful. Otherwise, he wouldn't need to "repent", or ask for forgiveness for once opposing homosexual "marriage". 

So, Josh Harris strongly disagrees with Jesus. They can't both be right. Who's right, and who's wrong? 

If Jesus was wrong, if he was in fact sinful, and in need of repentance, for opposing "marriage equality", as Josh Harris now believe, then Jesus couldn't possibly be a savior. He couldn't possibly be the sinless, spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Christianity would then be false.

What if Jesus wasn't sinful? What if he was simply mistaken? 

Jesus said of Himself: 

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [John 14:6]

Note that Jesus said of Himself that he is the truth. He doesn't just know the truth. Jesus is the truth. He personifies the truth. 

If Jesus was mistaken about anything, then He can't personify the truth, which means He was wrong about that, too. Which means He was either a liar, or downright crazy. 

If Jesus is right, and He really is the way, the truth, and the life, then He is God, because only God could truthfully make such a statement about Himself. But if Jesus was wrong, then He's either a liar, or a nut. 

What would you think of me if I said; "I, Oscar, am the way, the truth, and the life. I don't just know the way, I am the way. I don't just know the truth, I am the truth. I don't just know how to attain life, I am the life." Imagine if I said that. What would you think of me? You'd think I was either a liar (probably a con man, cult leader wannabe), or outright crazy. Maybe both. 

So, if Josh Harris is right, and Jesus is wrong, then the only logical, honest thing for Josh Harris to do, is to repudiate Christianity. Like I said before, I wish more counterfeit Christians would follow Josh Harris's example. Here's what I mean. 

In 2013, the Barna Group polled Americans on the subject of marriage. It turns out that a lot of people who call themselves Christians think Jesus is wrong. 

In 2013, 30% of "practicing Protestants" believed Jesus is wrong to define marriage between one man and one woman for life. 50% of "practicing Catholics" believed Jesus is wrong. It's probably worse now, but even at the 2013 numbers, that represents millions of professing Christians. 

If you're a Christian, and you believe Jesus is wrong, I have to ask you; why are you a Christian? Jesus is wrong about marriage, then what else is He wrong about?

And, please don't give me the lame excuse that He was just a product of His culture. First century Hebrew culture did not define marriage as one man, one woman, for life. First century Hebrew culture defined marriage as one man, as many women as he could afford, for as long as he felt like it. Jesus' definition of marriage was just as counter-cultural back then as it is now. 

What about polygamy? Why does the Old Testament allow, and even regulate polygamy? Probably for the same reason the Old Testament allowed, and even regulated divorce: because of the hardness of men's hearts.  Note that everywhere the Church spread, polygamy came to an end. Why? Because Jesus defined marriage as one man, one woman, for life.

Note also that the qualifications for elders in the church include the requirement that they be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1). Why would a church elder need to be "the husband of one wife"? Clearly, because elders are supposed to serve as an example to the rest of the men in the church.

In other words, believers took Jesus at His word. They believed Him, and they applied His definition of marriage everywhere they went. 

If you profess to be a Christian, and you think Jesus is wrong when He defines marriage as one man, one woman, for life; you have two logical options. 

1. Repent, and ask Jesus to forgive you. 
2. Admit the truth. Follow Josh Harris's example, and admit you're not a Christian.

There's no middle ground here. There's no "grey area". Either Jesus is God the Son, and He is right, or Jesus is wrong, He is not God at all, and Christianity is sham founded on the words of a man who was either a liar or a nut.

So, which is it, Christian? 

Chicks Dig Jerks, German ISIS Edition

A “German” (Turkish) ISIS bride told the Daily Mail her tale of star crossed love.

Derya O., Daily Mail

For several years she was the girlfriend of a Hells Angels boss...

Chicks dig jerks

... and says she became increasingly unhappy with her life shortly before meeting German convert Mario Sciannimanica online, who told her about life in ISIS.

Mario Sciannimanica? Sounds more like pasta than sour kraut.

Two months later, Derya left her German life behind and travelled to Turkey where she was trafficked across the Syrian border.

‘When I saw Mario for the first time, in military clothing with his full beard and weapon, he looked great,’ she said.

According to Derya, they spent their first night together in the unromantic surroundings of an ISIS torture chamber.

She said: ‘We were housed in a former torture chamber, there were chains hanging from the ceiling, blood was still on the walls, it was all very scary.’

Derya, who from that moment was forced to wear an all-covering burka, said that she did not have much in common with the group’s perverted interpretation of Islam.

‘Actually, I did not want all of that, I wanted to help Syrian children,’ she added.

Sure she did. Clearly she’s a modern day Mother Theresa.

She and Sciannimanica then moved to Iraq where their son was born in 2015, but they continuously argued and soon broke up.

That’s for all the dumbass Western men who think Islam is the cure for what ails Western women. I've met a few. Seriously. 

She immediately received a new marriage proposal from Denis Cuspert, a former rapper known as ‘Deso Dogg’ who became Germany’s most famous ISIS terrorist.

See? Even ISIS chicks are hypergamous!

‘He was often with us at home, he’s a very sweet human being,’ Derya said.

Chicks dig jerks!

However, she refused to marry him because ‘women have nothing to say with him’ and decided to become the second wife of Belgian ISIS commander Abu Salahuddin.

See? Even ISIS chicks are feminists!

‘Everything was fine until he was hit by a drone and died two months later. God, what bad luck I have with men,’ she added. ‘All of them die around me.’

Ya gotta love the passivity in that statement. It's not that she goes weak at the knees for evil men whose evil deeds lead to a bad end; It’s just “bad luck”.

She then went back to her first husband Mario Sciannimanica who was later accused of spying against ISIS, and executed by his former comrades after a quick trial.

After Sciannimanica was arrested and tortured, she fled from ISIS territory using human traffickers to get her across the Syrian-Turkish border.

Poetically, their relationship ended where it began, in an ISIS torture chamber!

She was jailed in a Turkish prison and extradited to Germany in the summer of 2017.

Silly Krauts. Why bother extraditing her? leave her where she chose to go, and bid her good riddance.

Normalizing Political Violence

Back in 2011, thousands of dirty (literally) Communists called themselves Occupy Wall Street and began squatting in their own filth in public parks in major cities all over the country. From there, they committed a long litany of crimes, including destruction of public and private property, rioting, looting, assault, rape and murder.

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

And Democrats loved them.

Source: CNN

Describing the protests as “serious” and “encouraging,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) praised the sentiment motivating Occupy Wall Street and called for Congress to take heed. “It’s got a clear message, and that is frustration with the way that business is being done, the way that wealth is tilting towards the high end and the middle class is shrinking. And that message needs to be given,” Welch, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me on Wednesday. What’s more he added, “it’s a real grassroots, citizens-led initiative. It’s not a top-down effort, it’s bottom up. In that sense, I think it’s very similar to the tea party.” 

Other progressive Democrats are even more enthusiastic. “I’m so proud to see the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to this rampant corporate greed and peacefully participating in our democracy,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). The co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, issued a joint statement to express “solidarity” with the movement, describing themselves as inspired by the mass movement. “We join the calls for corporate accountability and expanded middle-class opportunity,” they wrote. “The silent masses aren’t so silent anymore. They are fighting to give voice to the struggles that everyday Americans are going through,” added Rep. John Larson in his own statement supporting Occupy Wall Street. 

Even Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, agreed that there were similarities between the protesters’ message and Democratic priorities. “Certainly, there is an overlap in terms of jobs and economic opportunity, which they want and we want,” Hoyer told me. Though he didn’t go so far as his Democratic colleagues in embracing the movement wholeheartedly, he said that one “positive aspect” of the protests is that they’re “raising issues and raising concerns and asking policymakers to focus on it.”

Democrat presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, praised Occupy Wall Street.



Sanders is a decades-long Communist apologist who thinks so highly of Communism that he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union (clearly a romantic vacation spot), praised Communist Fidel Castro and the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and to this day states on his Senate website that...

These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger.

Sure, incomes are more equal in Venezuela. They're so equally bad that people are starving. The exception, is, of course, Venezuela's Socialist leadership, whose income is dong just fine. I took a screen shot, just in case he removes that travesty, but so far he seems quite proud of it.

Communism is the most murderous ideology in history. Communists murdered over 100 million people in the 20th Century alone, and the body count continues in North Korea, Cuba, China and Venezuela.

Communists are just as evil as Nazis, and their body count dwarfs that of the Nazis, so imagine if American politicians embraced and praised "protesters" who wore Hitler tee shirts...

Source

... or described himself as "proud" of a movement that called for "real Nazism"...

Source

... or if American politicians expressed "solidarity" with violent Nazi "protesters"...

Source

Would American politicians who expressed "solidarity" with violent Nazis ever be elected?

What if an American politician loved Nazism so much that he spent his honeymoon in Nazi Germany while the US was at war with Nazi Germany? Would such a politician take second place in a major party's presidential primary?

I'm not trying to change any politician's mind here. Politicians are - for the most part - cynical, amoral opportunists. Instead, I'd like to address those who voted for the politicians who praised violent Communist "protesters".

Would it be morally reprehensible to vote for a politician who praised violent Nazi "protesters"? If so, then why is it morally acceptable to vote for politicians who praised violent Communist "protesters"?

Let me make this as clear as I can for my "liberal" friends. By rewarding (with your vote) politicians who praised violent Communists back in 2011-12, you helped normalize political violence in the US. You're part of the problem.

Now, we've had riots at the presidential inauguration. That's now the norm.


Thanks to you, violence against political opponents is now the norm.


Political violence on college campuses is now the norm.

Violently shutting down speech with which "liberals" disagree is now the norm.

As Stanger, [Charles] Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following [Murray’s speech] they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing. 

Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car. 

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus. 

“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

You threw out the old rules of civil discourse, "liberals". You passively stood by - or even applauded - while violent Leftists shut down free speech on college campuses and political rallies, rioted, looted, vandalized and burned. Then you rewarded politicians who praised the violent mobs by voting for them.

What you don't seem to understand is that the old rules were there to protect you just as much as everyone else, and that others can - and will - follow the new rules you created. And when they do, you won't like it.

A (dis)Honest Conversation About Race

Soledad O'Brien claims she wants to have "an honest conversation about race", then proceeds to lie to her audience.

O'Brien tells so many lies of both omission and comission that it would take too long to break them all down, so I'll focus on only one of them.

In a roughly 10-year period in New York [City], approximately five million people were stopped [and frisked] by police. Eighty three percent of them were black and Hispanic men... What does it do to people to be considered a suspect constantly in their own neighborhoods because of the color of their skin?

O'Brien believes that the only reason police officers in NYC - and the rest of the country - stop and arrest more blacks than whites is because police officers are racists. That's a lie. Heather Mac Donald explains why. 

Blacks commit over 75% of the shootings in NYC, even though they make up only about 23% of the population. Whites commit about 2% of the shootings in NYC, even though they make up 34% of the city's population. As Ms. Mac Donald explains, using 2011 and 2012 data...

Blacks are 53 percent of stop subjects, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites are 9 percent of stop subjects, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population. Therefore, conclude Stringer and others, the NYPD targets individuals for stops based on their race rather than on crime patterns and suspicious behavior.

...

The claim ignores the reality that the preponderance of crime perpetrators, and victims, in New York are also minorities. Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city's population. 

Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under 3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men—and their assailants are virtually always other black (or Hispanic) males. 

Given such a crime imbalance, if the NYPD focuses its resources where people most need protection, the effort will inevitably produce racially disparate enforcement data.

Police departments that do their job concentrate their efforts in the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. In NYC, those neighborhoods are largely populated by blacks. Because of that, most of the people the NYPD stops and frisks are black. But Soledad O'Brien blames that on racism.

To illustrate the audacity of Ms. O'Brien's lie, think about this for a second.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 93.3% of prisoners in the US are male. Clearly that must be the result of anti-male sexism, right? Of course not! Obviously, most prisoners are male because males commit the vast majority of crimes. Likewise, the incarceration rate among black Americans is much higher than the incarceration rate among Hispanic Americans, white Americans and Asian Americans (in that order) because the crime rate among black Americans is far higher than the crime rate among Hispanic Americans, white Americans and Asian Americans (in that order).

In her speech, Soledad O'Brien stated that...

You cannot advance good if you don't confront bad, and you cannot seek renewal if you're not willing to dig into the uncomfortable truths about how we got here today.

She's right. But she also refuses to confront uncomfortable truths about crime rates among black Americans, and the reasons for them. Larry Elder doesn't have that problem.

As I pointed out before, fatherlessness is the number one correlating factor among violent criminals...

According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

And as I also pointed out in that article, and Larry Elder points out in his video, our welfare system promotes fatherlessness by encouraging women to "marry the state". Soledad O'Brien can't admit that crime rates actually are higher among blacks than whites because if she did she'd have to begin asking why that is, and as every "good" "liberal", she supports the welfare state that rewards fatherlessness and therefore promotes criminality.

In his video, Larry Elder relates the following advice his hard-working, WWII Marine veteran father, who was born in the Jim Crow South, gave him.

Hard work wins. You get out of life what you put into it. You can't control the outcome, but you are 100% in control of the effort. And before blaming other people, go to the nearest mirror and ask yourself, "what could I have done better to change the outcome?" 

Those are the words of a man who sees himself as an active moral agent, not a passive, perpetual victim. A truly honest conversation about race would ask black Americans to go the nearest mirror and ask themselves what they could do to change the out-of-control criminality in their neighborhoods, but Soledad O'Brien wants them to blame white people for all their problems and pretend that black crime rates are no higher than anyone else's.

Apparently, Soledad O'Brien doesn't see black Americans as moral agents, which means she sees black Americans as either not fully human, or as perpetual children, which is ironic, considering that she accuses others of racism. A person who sees black Americans as fully adult humans holds black Americans to the same standards to which he/she holds white Americans, not the lower, childlike standards to which Soledad O'Brien holds them.



A truly honest conversation about race in America would include discussions about how embracing a victim mentality, a sense of entitlement and fatherlessness, glorifying thug culture, and rejecting individual responsibility can only lead to violence, poverty and dysfunction.



Jason Riley, who wrote Please Stop Helping Us, converses honestly about race in America. He explains how embracing a culture of underachievement holds black Americans back (6:36 - 9:40), and much more. Listen to his whole speech and the Q&A if you have time.



Obviously, Soledad O'Brien told some truths. The most effective lies are seasoned with truth to make them more palatable. For example, it's true that the Tuskegee Institute found that 3,446 black Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968. It's also true that even one is one too many.

But even then she lied by omission, because it's also true that - according to the FBI's Unified Crime Report - black criminals murdered 4,585 black Americans between 2014 and 2015. That means that black criminals murdered more black Americans in two years than racist Southerners lynched in 86 years.

Which is the bigger, more immediate problem; 3,446 black Americans lynched over 86 years ending 49 years ago, or 4,585 black Americans murdered over two years right now? Why does Soledad O'Brien focus on a smaller problem that ended 49 years ago, and ignore a much bigger problem that is ongoing right now?

Because focusing on the current, bigger problem wouldn't help her sell her lies.

What makes me think that Soledad O'Brien is lying, and not just wrong? She worked for CNN, and CNN devotes itself to spreading the lie that blacks are perpetual victims, whites are perpetual victimizers of blacks, and therefore blacks are not responsible for any crimes they commit. For example, CNN pushed the "hands up don't shoot" lie.

Source: News Busters

Michael Brown died because he was a violent thug who stole from a store, assaulted a store employee who confronted him, then attacked a police officer, not because he was an innocent victim of police racism. But CNN pushed the lie before knowing the facts, then, even when it was clear they'd pushed a lie, they refused to admit to their part in pushing the lie and suppressing the truth.

More recently, four black suspects (two males, two females, ranging from 17 to 24 years old) kidnapped and tortured a white 18-year-old mentally disabled man while yelling "f**k Donald Trump" and "f**k white people" at him, and live streamed his torture on Facebook.



If you have the stomach for it, you can find the whole video online, but I won't link to it here.

Chicago kidnapping & torture suspects: ABC News.

CNN's Don Lemon refused to call this horrific crime evil.

I don't think it's evil. I don't think it's evil. I think these are young people and I think they have bad home training. 

When I say who is raising these young people, I have no idea who is raising these young people because no one I know on earth who is seventeen years old or seventy years old would ever think of treating another person like that.

See? It's not their fault, even though they're well above the age of conscience. Why would CNN's Don Lemon refuse to call this horror evil? One of his guests, Symone Sanders, gives us a clue.

We’ve talked about white nationalists and white supremacists and the KKK, but there also, when this inflammatory rhetoric is out there, when someone is repeatedly telling you that your community is the worst of the worst, it brings out the worst of the worst in people. 

That is not a hate crime. Hate crimes are because of a person’s racial ethnicity, their religion, their gender, a disability, it isn’t your political leanings, because someone doesn’t like you’re political leanings and they do something bad to you, that is not a hate crime.

See? It's white people's fault. No matter what four black criminals did to a mentally disabled white man, it's not their fault, because the black criminals are victims of racist whites. Clearly, neither Don Lemon nor Symone Sanders see these four black criminals as active moral agents, like Larry Elder's father saw himself and taught Larry Elder to see himself. Don Lemon and Symone Sanders both display the same refusal to hold black Americans responsible for their own actions that Larry Elder, Chloe Valdary and Taleeb Starkes referenced in their videos.

Clearly, CNN is devoted to pushing lies about race in America, and it stands to reason that they hired Soledad O'Brien because she too is devoted to pushing similar lies.

There's another reason that Soledad O'Brien is clearly lying, and not just repeating a lie she believes. Soledad O'Brien is a professional investigative journalist with the resources of one of the world's biggest news organizations at her disposal. What's more likely; that her investigation never uncovered the facts I presented here, or that she omitted them deliberately? Is it more likely that I'm better at her job than she is, or that she omitted facts that contradict the narrative she wants to push?

The answers are obvious.

Why take the time to expose these lies?

First and foremost, because the truth matters... always. Second, because the lies that CNN and Soledad O'Brien are spreading have gotten hundreds of people killed, the majority of them black.

As Heather Mac Donald states in her video, crime rates - especially murder rates - skyrocketed in many US cities when the "Ferguson Effect" - spurred by media lies about endemic racism among police officers - caused police departments to pull back from high crime, inner city, majority black neighborhoods.

University of Missouri at St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld has had "second thoughts." Like many academic criminologists, he had pooh-poohed charges that skyrocketing murder rates in many cities in 2015 and 2016 result from a "Ferguson effect" — a skittering back from proactive policing for fear of accusations of racism like those that followed the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014. 

Now, after looking over 2015 data from 56 large cities, he tells The Guardian that he has changed his mind. Homicides in those cities were up 17 percent from 2014. And ten cities, all with large black populations, saw homicides up 33 percent on average. 

"These aren't flukes or blips, this is a real increase," Rosenfeld told reporter Lois Beckett. "The only explanation that gets the timing right is a version of the Ferguson effect."

It gets worse when you look at specific cities. The murder rate in DC increased by 54%. In Baltimore it was 56%. In Cleveland, 90%.

In Chicago, 768 people were murdered in 2016 (as of 27 Dec 2016), compared to 468 in 2015, and 416 in 2014.

How many hundreds (thousands?) of people - most of them black - are dead today because of the lies that Soledad O'Brien, CNN and the mainstream media in general spread?  We'll never know. And Soledad O'Brien, Don Lemon, Symone Sanders and the rest will never care.

Woman Worship

Joining in on the fake outrage over Donald Trump's lewd comments, many Republican politicians released statements condemning Trump's immorality - of which they were well aware from the start. That's only a springboard to this post's subject. Here are two of the stupidest statements I read. 

“Mr. Trump’s comments were offensive and disgusting. There is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect.” ~ Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) 

“I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)

Coincidentally, around the same time I ran into this horror story.

Shockingly, police accused the child’s mother, Michelle Martens, 35, of arranging for her boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, 31, to rape her child. Police also accused Martens of helping to stab the child to death and dismembering her. Gonzales’s cousin, Jessica Kelley, 31, was also arrested for participating in the horrific crime. 

Michelle Martens (left), murderous mother of the late Victoria Martens (right, 10 years old).

Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.

..... 

But ultimately the records show Martens gave up her claims of being a victim and admitted she had allowed several men to have sex with the child and named at least two men who did so. 

Have you ever heard anyone say that all men "deserve to be treated with respect", or that men "are to be championed and revered"? Me neither. Why? Because no one believes such nonsense. Everyone understands some men earn respect and reverence through their respectable, reverential behavior, while others don't, and that we should treat them accordingly.

But, for some bizarre reason, few apply that same standard to women.

Does Michelle Martens "deserve to be treated with respect... championed and revered"? Is pimping out her daughter to various men in exchange for drugs, watching them have sex with her daughter, watching one murder the 10-year-old girl and then having sex with the murderer respectable, reverential behavior that we should champion?

If you answered "yes" to either question, please leave my blog.

If you answered "no", please ask yourself; why is it acceptable to say that "all women deserve to be treated with respect", and that "women are to be championed and revered"? If those statements are true, that means that Michelle Martens "deserve[s] to be treated with respect... championed and revered".

The truth is that women who've earned respect and reverence through respectable, reverential behavior deserve to be respected, championed and revered. Those who haven't, don't. If you think otherwise, you're sexist.

Think about it. Judging a person on the basis of his/her sex instead of his/her individual behavior is sexism.

Furthermore, people who treat women who've never earned respect as though they have are basically treating women who have earned respect like chumps. After all, if you can receive respect without earning it; why go through the trouble of earning it?

Women aren't angelic, sinless beings born through immaculate conception. They're retched, depraved sinners, just like men.

Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16     ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
...
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Note the repetitive use of absolute terms like "no one", "not even one" and "all". There is only one exception, and it's not your wife, your daughter or your mom. It's Christ. That's it.

Now, I realize that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are politicians, and as such they are craven opportunists who'll say anything to give their political party an advantage. But, precisely for that reason, they would only make such statements if they knew that such statements play well with their constituents. Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch probably aren't stupid enough to believe those statements, but they probably know their constituents are.

It's far worse when pastors - who really should know better since, presumably, they know the Bible - engage in woman worship.

I don't have time to get into that now, but I will.

You're Stuck In This Country With Us

If you've ever watched the movie Watchmen - or better yet, read the comic - you probably remember the following scene. If you're squeamish, skip the video.

Rorschach, one of the heroes, gets locked up with many of the criminals he put in prison. After defeating an attacker in a fight, Rorschach yells at his fellow inmates, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit alluded to that scene when explaining one of the basic functions of government.

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system. Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

The following day (3 Sep 2015), Prof. Reynolds linked to a story about the rising trend of street "justice" in Venezuela.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones. 

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

Almost a year later, the trend has not abated. In fact, as Venezuela continues its death spiral under the crushing weight of Socialism, it seems to be getting worse. Why? Caracas city councilman, Jesús Armas, explains...

This year will without a doubt be the most violent in the history of our city...  

The insecurity has three roots. The first is associated with levels of poverty and inequality that we see in the city. Today Venezuela is the country with the highest inflation in the world, with shortages that force people to line up for hours to buy food. For decades neighborhoods have sprung up outside the city, and now more than 50 percent of the city's population lives in places where houses are built with low-quality materials, and where they don't formally have access to basic public services and are without roads or consolidated public spaces. 

Poverty, inequality and no basic public services in the Chavista Socialist paradise? Unpossible!

The second element has to do with a culture of lawlessness. In the country, a habit of disrespect for most basic laws - those related to transit, shoplifting, even the ways the authorities and the rest of the population interact with these laws, has resulted in a collective indifference toward much larger crimes because the law is simply a dead letter. 

When the government officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the biggest thieves, how can anyone else be expected to respect the law? Chavez died a billionaire, and his daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Finally, there is the reaction of the national and local government in terms of managing the violence. The truth is that we have a mayor who, through hate speech and a series of acts of violence promoted by groups related to his party and his administration, has over the years exhibited excessive permissiveness toward huge criminal groups that dominate vast and populous parts of the city, either because they handle drug trafficking or because they have a monopoly on violence and illegal activities that generate income. 

Likewise, the state has implemented a policy that has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property of citizens, but on the contrary, has driven a socialist model that seeks to limit those freedoms, using crime as a way to maintain power and control of the population. But the truth is that today things are out of control and we are left with a failed state in which the so-called peace zones are micro-states controlled by gangsters and not by constitutional institutions.

Life, liberty and property? Where have I read that before? Mr. Armas hit the nail on the head. A government's sole purpose is to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and property. As Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address:

... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's Socialist government - like all Socialist governments - busies itself primarily with "[taking] from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned", secondarily with buying votes with the bread it took from the mouth of labor, and not at all with its actual responsibility of "[restraining] men from injuring one another".

The result is what we now see in Venezuela. We may not see it for long, not because it'll stop any time soon, but because Venezuela's government - embarrassed by its own impotence and incompetence - banned media coverage of the lynchings. Venezuela's government won't crack down on crime, much less unshackle the people and economy from the disastrous Socialist policies that led to the disintegration of Venezuelan society. They'll just prevent news outlets from talking about it, thereby accomplishing nothing of value.

As European governments refuse to protect their citizens from Muslim migrant criminals and conspire to cover up their negligence, homicide rates in some American cities skyrocket due to the Ferguson Effect, and insurmountable federal debt leads us towards Venezuela-style hyperinflation, lessons abound. The decent among us need to learn those lessons quickly and prepare accordingly. Criminals won't. After all, criminals aren't known for prudence or self-control.

Source: Fox News Latino