Scriptural Proof There Is No Free Will

NOTICE: I do not believe in any of these man made Gods.  I am agnostic and can not hate God as I do not believe in him.  My view of these Scriptures are far more objective than others in that I am NOT threatened with eternal torture by fire if I don’t believe and I am not promised great rewards if I do believe.

This Scriptural Proof is followed by three other posts that expose more truths/facts that religious types would rather you NOT learn.  It is only my opinion and I present it as “according to the Bible”. 

If we are to believe the Bible is the word of God, we must be  honest with ourselves and admit that Scripture doesn’t provide for Free Will.   This can be demonstrated both through Scripture and SIMPLE logic.  

Free Will:  Is defined as - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Religious types argue they have Free Will given to them by God.  I argue the opposite.  

Regardless of what the Bible states, IF they believe in God then they have NO Free Will….according to the definition of Free Will.  Why? Because it is a NECESSITY they believe and Directly Related to their FATE!!  Their FATE DEPENDS on their belief.

If they do not believe, they will be tortured by a loving God for eternity (Christian version).  Additionally, if they DO believe, their FATE will involve REWARDS of things like Eternal life and Love.  

Imagine telling a child (impressionable mind) that if he/she doesn’t believe in your Version of God he is going to be punished the most horrifying torture if he/she doesn’t believe.  Now imaging having this information given to him by those that love him/her the most….MOM and DAD!  Now, imagine Mom and Dad taking this child to places where there are many others that tell him the same thing, adults and kids and nice friendly people that enforce the belief. Could this Child use FREE WILL to decide to believe?  Absolutely NOT!  This Child actually has almost NO choice and in reality is forced to believe in the version of God that is taught to them.  The majority of Christians will tell us that their child made a free will choice.  That is a LIE and it doesn’t allow for a child to make a free will choice.

Brainwashing is mental abuse.  Yes, religious leaders do want to Brainwash your children:

“Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience — what they see, hear, think, and believe — will determine the future course for the nation.”  — James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family   …CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE and HONESTY?  haha

Brainwashing is NOT FREE WILL!!

Note: I believe we have free will but I don’t believe in God and I don’t believe the Bible is the word of any of the many versions of God.  My fate is not tied to believing in a God.

Lets Begin the Scriptural Proof:

“Yet ALL is of God” (II Cor. 5:18)  (recently I had someone tell me this is NOT God’s word but the words of Paul.  So I guess we are to assume it was also not inspired by God and not true?)

Can we find  Free Will in that Scripture?  I don’t!  ALL….EVERYTHING is OF GOD!  Plain and simple!!  Notice that many will say I took Scripture out of context. 

Does the Scripture say “Yet all is NOT of God” ?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Is the Scripture “Yet ALL is of God”  TRUE or FALSE?  Unless one wants to DENY the word of God they must admit it is True.  Therefore simple logic demonstrates that we can not have Free Will if ALL is of God.

Another Witness?

“Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, which appears for a little time, and then vanishes away. For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:13-15).

Like other Scriptures, apparently the Holy Spirit “inspired” James or others to write these statements. 

Another Witness?

“Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heave” (Matt. 6:9-10).

Man’s Will?  Nope!

Another Witness?

“For the Scripture says unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show My powers in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore has He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will Hehardens“ (Vers. 17-18).

Pharaoh did not harden his own heart—God said that He hardened it.

Free Will?  NO!

Another Witness?

“You will say then unto me, Why does He [God] yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?”  [Greek ..purpose] (Rom. 9:19).

Again, God’s Will!

Another Witness?

This is an amazing Scripture. This Scripture shows the difference in attitude between those who understand God’s plan and will and those who do not.

“For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are ALL THINGS…” (Rom. 11:36).  Where is the free will? Again, some will say it is out of context.  Are they then saying that NOT all things are of him, through him and to him?  Either it is or it is NOT!

Is the above Scripture True or False?  Unless one wants to DENY the word of God, they must admit that yes “For of him…..are ALL THINGS”

Another Witness?

“In Whom [GOD] also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINATED [our ‘destiny’ was ‘pre’ arranged by God] according to the PURPOSE OF HIM Who WORKS ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL” (Eph. 1:11).  Again, does their argument of “out of context” apply to this Scripture or is it clear that God works ALL things after his OWN Will?  It is rather difficult to have a Free Will when it is all been pre-arranged.

Does he work all things according  to his Will?  TRUE or FALSE?  

Another Witness?

“For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are ALL THINGS…” (Rom. 11:36). 

Again, is this Scripture True or False  ”For OF HIM…are all Things..”

Another Witness?

“For by Him [Jesus] were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible [unseen powers], whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him. And He is before all things and by Him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).  

All Things consist (yes, this includes evil things, this includes faith, and even repenting)

Another Witness?

“To every thing there is a season [appointed time],and a time to every purpose [matter or event] under the heaven” (Ecc. 3:1).

“I know that, whatsoever God does…NOTHING can be put to it, nor ANYTHING taken from it: and GOD does it” (Ecc. 3:14).

“…for He has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work…” (The New Revised Standard Version).

“For He has set a season for every event and for every deed…” (The Concordant Literal Old Testament).

Just how can there be Free Will when this God appointed the exact time for everything to happen?  Context? They are not willing to say God DIDN”T appoint a time for every event or every matter but don’t want to admit that he did….even when the word spells it out specifically!

Another Witness?

“Declaring the END from the BEGINNING…”  (Isa. 46:10).

Another Witness?

“For in Him we LIVE, and MOVE, and have our BEING…” (Acts 17:28).

Another Witness?

“O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man that walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).   How can one have Free Will when even their own steps are not of themselves?  It is impossible!!  Simple Logic demonstrates this fact.  Context?  Either man walks to direct is OWN steps or he doesn’t. 

Another Witness?

YOU can NOT say Jesus is Lord, unless God gives you that ability.

“…no man CAN say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.” 

Another Witness?

“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the FATHER IN ME? The WORDS that I speak unto you I speak NOT OF MYSELF; but the Father that dwells in Me, HE DOES THE WORKS” (John 14:10).

I didn’t catch any Free Will in that statement…did anyone else?

Another Witness?

“For OUT [the Greek is ‘out’ not ‘of’] of Him and THROUGH Him and FOR [Greek is ‘for’ not ‘to’] is ALL” (Rom. 11:36).

Another Witness?

“God is operating ALL in all” (I Cor. 12:6)  (operating – to CONTROL the function)   Context?  Either God is Operating ALL in ALL or he is NOT.   The implication of this Scripture are clear.  Does God operate all in all?  True or False?

If they accept that this Scripture is True then we logically demonstrate that there is again NO Free Will.

Another Witness?

EVEN your FAITH is not of “Yourself” or in other words, you don’t decide to have faith, it is given to you and not of your Free Will:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that [‘faith’] not of yourselves it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).

Is the faith of yourself?  True or False?  This Scripture states that is is NOT of yourself.  God’s words, NOT MINE.  If you don’t like it, speak to him about it.

Additionally, you can’t even be saved of your own Free Will but instead it is by the GRACE of God.

Another Witness?

“I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith OF the Son of Who loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). WOW!

Notice it is not faith IN the Son of God but the exact Faith OF the Son of God…let us make it clear…it is HIS faith, not ours until he Gives it to us.  Again, NO Free Will…not even in our faith!

Another Witness?

“…and what have you that you did not RECEIVE….?” (I Cor. 4:7).

Yes, even your faith you have received as this Scripture and the others above appear to confirm.  Remember, EVERYTHING according to the WILL of God. 

You can’t even repent, if not for God.

“Or despise you the riches of HIS goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God LEADS you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4).

Your “Free Will” doesn’t lead you to repent..Absolutely NOT….it is the Goodness of God!

Another Witness?

This one is rather clear like the others!

“I am the vine, you are the branches … for without me you can do NOTHING” (John 15:5).  

YOU can do NOTHING but for the father.  Where do we get Free Will out of that Scripture?  Impossible’!

Another Witness?

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, what Jesus is about to say is the Gospel I say unto you, THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF…” (John 5:19).

Now this is a Good one.  Christians make a claim that although Jesus (The Son of God Himself) can do NOTHING but for the Father, SOMEHOW they have the ability to do what Jesus could not do?  WOW!  They put themselves ABOVE Jesus Christ Himself when they say they have Free Will but Jesus Didn’t.

Another Witness?

“Then said Pilate unto Him, Speak you not unto me? Know you not that I HAVE POWER to crucify you, and have POWER TO RELEASE YOU? Jesus answered, You could have NO POWER AT ALL against Me, except it were GIVEN YOU from above…” (John 19:10-11).  

Seems Jesus made it clear it was Pilate didn’t have Free Will to do as he wanted.  But every Christian thinks they have Free Will according to Scripture.

Another Witness?

Has not the Potter [GOD] power over the clay [man], of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Rom. 9:20-21).

Does the clay have free will to form itself?  Absolutely NOT!

Another Witness?

When God’s time came to release Israel from bondage, we read this:

“And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them” (Ex. 2:23-25).

And just what “caused” Israel to ”cry unto God?” Their own free will? No. ”Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried…” There is always a cause, but it is never man’s fabled free will.

Just how much of this release from bondage was dependant upon the will of the Children of Israel? And is it by our own will that we also repent and come out of our Egypt of sin and bondage? Or is it all of God?

“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel,

I am the Lord and

I will bring you out from under the burden of the Egyptians, and

I will rid you out of their bondage, and

I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And

I will take you to Me for a people, and

I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that

I am the Lord your God, which brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And

I will bring you in unto the land, concerning that which

I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and

I will give it you for an heritage:

I am the Lord” (Ex. 6:6-8).

Eleven times in one sentence, we read God saying that it is “I“ [GOD], and not man’s will that, performs these miracles. When God says that He will cause a dozen national and international interventions of colossal proportions, how are the millions of people involved “free” to do anything but react according to what God causes to come about?

Guess what?  Christians will continue to say they have Free Will….Amazing.

Another Witness?

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:23).

Another Witness?

“Or despise you the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom. 2:4).

What leads us to repentance? The goodness of our illusionary God-given “free will?” NO, “…the GOODNESS OF GOD…” 

Another Witness?

“Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: FORGOD DID SEND ME BEFORE YOU TO PRESERVE LIFE” (Gen. 45:5).

Who sent him?  God…not his own free will.  

Remember God said, He Changes NOT!  Always the same, today, yesterday and forever!

Another Witness?

“And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we be thy servants. And Joseph said unto them, Fear not, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought EVIL AGAINST ME; but GOD MEANT IT UNTO GOOD, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:18-20).

It seems all those things that happened in the lives of many where all part of what God willed.  None of them could have done anything other than what God made them do.  amazing….Christians still say they have free will?

Another Witness?

“For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, [this is the cause an force behind the "Christian" walk.  ‘His workmanship’ in action, not some presumed freedom of the will in action] created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10

Let us not forget the great example that Jesus made to show the disciples that they don’t have free will and will do exactly as God planned.

Yes, Jesus told them they would deny him.  They were sure they had free will and said, impossible, we would never…NEVER deny you.  Jesus,

knowing they didn’t have free will said, Yes, you will deny me.  They again thinking it was their choice stated, NO, we will never deny you my lord.

Folks….what happened?  They denied him.  Just one of many examples of how the bible demonstrates you don’t truly have free will.

If anything in the universe has ever malfunctioned contrary to the intention of the Creator and Designer “God”, then the flaw is in the Inventor, not the invention! GOD IS THE POTTER: WE ARE THE CLAY! According to Scripture!

Clearly God believes he is the potter but Christian think he doesn’t have this power.

 

Scriptural Proof That ALL EVIL is OF God

NOTE: If you are amazed at the truth exposed in this post, then make sure you check the others at the top of my blog…NO FREE WILL, ALL MEN SAVED, SYMBOLIC BOOK OF REVELATION.  

Based on Scripture, I will prove that All Evil is of God and that includes the death of loved ones, the torture or abuse of children, war, rape…. EVERYTHING is Of HIM and Scriptures Agree. According to the Bible, if it is the word of God, then ALL evil is OF God. 

If one was to read my last post about free will and how everything is OF God, including “the steps of men”.  You will notice how ALL those scriptures support what I am about to post about God. Proof, that All Evil is OF God.  

Notice the word translated “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 is the Hebrew word ra. The Hebrew word for “calamity” is the Hebrew word ade which means “misfortune, misery, or ruin. Whereas the Hebrew word ra means “bad or evil.” It is the same word used for the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil [ra].” It was not the tree of the knowledge of “good and calamity.” Did Jacob really mean to say,“a calamitous beast” had devoured his son?(Gen. 37:33)? Did Israel really “do calamity in the sight of God” by worshipping Balaam, or did they do evil?(Jud. 3:7).

The Hebrew ra means “bad or evil” and it is used over four hundred times to represent bad or evil, not calamity.

Some have tried to show that Isa. 45:7 is speaking of “calamity” and not “evil.” Of the nineteen times that the word “calamity” appears in the Scriptures, it is never translated from the Hebrew Word ra, but usually is translated from the Hebrew word, ade.

“I create EVIL” (Isa. 45:7)  Context?  Look at these scriptures!  What context is needed for someone saying “I CREATE EVIL”.   Is this Scripture True or False?  Did he create Evil like he stated or NOT?  However, if “yet ALL is of God”  Like God Claims, then that ALL includes Evil!  

Out of God’s mouth “proceeds…EVIL” (Lam. 3:38).  

“…an experience of EVIL has God given to the sons of man…” (Ecc. 1:13, Concordant Liter Old Testament).

“…I [God] will raise up EVIL against thee…” (II Sam. 12:11).

Who Raises Up Evil?  God!

“…has not the Potter [God] the right… to make… one [vessel] for DISHONOR?” (Rom. 9:19-25).  Context?  Is it NOT clear what God has stated and does it not match all the other scriptures I have posted.  Completely in context with all scripture!  Evil is of God!

“I [God] created the waster to DESTROY” (Isa. 54:16).  Context?  Really?  Is it not clear what he is saying? Did God create the Waster or NOT?  True or False?

“The Lord has made…the WICKED for the day of EVIL” (Prov. 16:4).  Context?  Again, either God made the wicked or he did NOT.  Clearly, God believes he did.  Clearly, Christians tell us God made EVERYTHING!  But when you point out that EVERYTHING includes Evil, Wicked people that molest children, they immediately try to make excuses and twist scripture.

“…I [God] will bring EVIL from the north, and a great DESTRUCTION (Jer. 4:6).  Who?  Who will bring Evil?  Is that the same being that Created Evil?  My Goodness, it appears it is.

“…Hear, O earth: behold, I [God] will bring EVIL upon this people…” (Jer. 6:19). Who?….did he say GOD?

God told a “lying spirit” to “…go forth, and do so [lie]” (I Kings 22:22).

Is it a sin to lie?  Seems Evil to me but I am sure we can get many excuses from those that believe Evil is not of God and Deny his word.

“He [God] turned their heart to HATE His people…” (Psalm 105:25).

Again, God (NOT the Free Will Of Men) Turned their hearts to HATE! This is yet another example of God doing what he said “Operating ALL in ALL”

“Behold I [God] frame EVIL against you…” (Jer. 18:11).

Who?  Who Frames Evil?  I can’t believe it, again, it said GOD!

“For God locks up all together in STUBBORNNESS [that’s an evil]…” (Rom. 11:32).

“O Lord, why have You MADE us TO ERR from your ways…” (Isa. 63:17).

Are you starting to see the CLEAR picture?  It is pretty clear, isn’t it?  Is it our FREE WILL that MADE us ERR in this Scripture?  NO…it is the “Lord”.

“…so shall the Lord bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS…” (Josh. 23:15).

Who?….was that the Lord doing this ….AGAIN?

“…shall there be EVIL in a city, and the Lord has not done it?” (Amos 3:6). Is this not clear?  Evil…um…like rape, molesting children, torture, murder….yes they are all evil and apparently the LORD has done it.  The LORD takes responsibility for it in this very statement.  That is rather profound!

“Yet He [God] is SCOURGING [severely beating] every son to whom He is receiving” (Heb. 12:5).

“What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive EVIL” (Job 2:10).  Again, God seems to clarify that if evil happens, he has done it.  Seems it is important so he repeated himself to make it CLEAR to everyone!

“Thus saith the Lord of hosts… go and SMITE Amalek… DESTROY… SLAY both man and woman, infant and suckling…” (I Sam. 15:2-3).

Did God tell someone to Smite, Destroy, Slay both man and women?  Is it Evil to do such things?  Well, In my Agnostic mind it is Evil. 

“…God shall send them strong DELUSION, that they should believe A LIE” (II Thes. 2:11).

God can send a Delusion to anyone as God said ALL things are possible with him.  Some reason, ALL religious people think God doesn’t send a lie to them so they believe the things they preach.  Apparently over 300 denominations of the Christian religion believe they are telling the truth yet they disagree.  Millions reading the same words, disagree on the meaning.  Someone is believing a lie.  If an all powerful being Deceived you, you would NOT even know it unless he let you know it.

Do not forget God also stated:

“God is operating ALL in all” (I Cor. 12:6)  Operate: To control the function!!!  Again, God apparently takes credit for doing and causing EVERYTHING.  Controlling men…the steps of men and more!!  Context?  Give me a break.  Is God operating all in all or NOT?  God apparently thinks he is and Christians apparently deny his word and tell him he is NOT.  Excuses and hypocrisy are common with religion.

“Yet ALL is of God” (II Cor. 5:18)

“…Who works [‘operates’] ALL THINGS after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).

“For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are ALL THINGS…” (Rom. 11:36).

“And ALL THINGS are of God…” (II Cor. 5:;18)

NOTICE:  ALL would include EVIL and ALL things would include EVIL

Examples of evil:

Outside of murder by drowning of babies / infants in God’s mass flood. We have religious types telling us God will Torture billions with FIRE for Eternity.  I would call the torturous drowning/Murder of Babies and the Unborn child in the womb of the mother rather Evil.  Christians Call this God that performs these acts….wait…wait....MORAL?  It is also apparently “moral” to torture billions for the horrible sin of not believing?  Torture with fire for eternity?  Sorry, Torture and Murder are never, NEVER moral, NEVER compassionate, NEVER merciful, NEVER loving, NEVER acceptable!!!  Unless you are the religious leaders like Jim Jones the Christians or Hitler the Christian, or those that fly planes into buildings on 9/11.  They apparently think it is Good!

In my Opinion, Torture and Murder are Evil.  NOT MORAL

Isaiah 13:16 ;Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

Isaiah 13:18;Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.

Hosea 9:16;”Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.”

Psalm 137:8-9;O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Hosea 13:16;… because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

Lets add to the list:

EARTHQUAKES :

Earthquakes are mentioned in 17 verses of Scripture, and everyone one of them is FROM THE LORD:

    “You shall be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake…” (Isa. 29:6).

    “And, behold, there was a great earthquake for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven…”  (Matt. 28:2). Etcetera,

After each category of evil that I will Scripturally prove comes from God, we need to ask ourselves, “Does God ‘allow’ all of these things, or does God create, cause, and bring these evils upon humanity?”   God does not “allow” earthquakes, but rather He causes and brings earthquakes. I will give a second witness to each of these categories, although with some of these evils, there are hundreds of Scriptural examples.

FLOODS :

    “And with the blast of Thy [God’s] nostrils the waters were gathered together [Heb: ‘piled up’], the floods stood upright as an heap [Heb: ‘mound, a wave’ as in the tsunami quake which caused a huge wave!], and the depths [Heb: ‘an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply), Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary] were congealed in the heart of the sea”  (Exodus 15:8).

    “And, Behold! I [GOD] even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, where in is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die”  (Gen. 6:17).

PLAGUES AND DISEASE :

    “Moreover He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt, which you were afraid of and they shall cleave unto you. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of the law, them will the Lord bring upon you, until you be destroyed”  (Deut. 28:60-61)

    “The LORD shall smite you with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue you until you perish”  (Deut. 28:22).

POVERTY :

    “The LORD makes poor…”  (I Sam. 2:7).

    “The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of all”  (Prov. 22:2).

FAMINE :

    “Moreover He [God] called for a famine upon the land: He broke the whole staff of bread” (Psalm 105:16).

    “And I [God] will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from the land…”  (Jer. 24:10).

AFFLICTIONS :

    “…the Lord has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted [Heb: ‘to make good for nothing’] me”  (Ruth 1:21).

    “And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them [Heb: ‘hurt and weakened’]”  (II Kings 17:20).

THE SWORD :

    “I [God] will consume them by the sword…”  (Jer. 14:12).

    “I [God] will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their father have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them”  (Jer. 9:16).

WAR :

    “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is His name”  (Ex. 15:3).

    “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and He that sat upon Him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war”  (Rev. 19:11).

DESTRUCTION :

    “Howl! Ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty”  (Isa. 13:6).

    “Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come” (Joel 1:15).

“PESTILENCE:

    “And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall DIE of a great pestilence”  (Jer. 21:6).

    “If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people…” (II Chron. 7:13).

HAIL :

    “Behold, tomorrow about this time I will CAUSE it to rain a very grievous hail, such as has not been in Egypt since the foundation thereof even until now”  (Ex. 9:18).

    “I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labors of your hands, yet ye turned not to me, saith the Lord”  (Haggai 2:17).

ICE, COLD AND FROST :

    “He casts forth His ice like morsels: who can stand before His cold?” (Psalm 147:17).

    “He DESTROYED their vines with hail, and their sycamore trees with frost”  (Psalm 78:47).

KILLING :

    “And My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless”  (Ex. 22:24).

    “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven… a time to kill…”  (Ecc. 3:1 & 3).

SLAUGHTER :

    “And the Lord discomfited them before Israel; and slew them with a great slaughter…” (Joshua 10:10).

    “For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He has utterly destroyed them, he has delivered them to the slaughter”  ( Isa. 34:2).

CALAMITY :

    “I will scatter them as with an east wind before the enemy; I will show them the back, and not the face, in the day of their calamity” (Jer. 18:17).

    “…and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof, says the Lord” (Jer. 49:32).

WIND :

    “You break the ships of Tarshish with an east wind…”  (Psalm 48:7).

    “Thus says the Lord; Behold, I will raise up against Babylon… a destroying wind” (Jer. 51:1).

GRIEF :

    “You did say, Woe is me now! For the Lord has added grief to my sorrow; I fainted in my sighing, and I find no rest” (Jer. 45:3).

    “But though He [God] cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of His mercies”  (Lam. 3:32).

FIRE :

    “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven”  (Gen. 19:24).

    “And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them”  (Rev. 20:9).

FOREST FIRES :

    “…I will kindle a fire in the forest thereof, and it shall devour all things round about it”  (Jer. 21:14).

    “And say to the forest… I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee…”  (Ezek. 20:47).

WILD BEASTS :

    “I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate”  (Lev. 26:22).

    “They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust” (Deut. 32:24).

As I have stated, there are MANY more examples that can be provided.  I believe the Case for All Evil being of God and even Done by God is supported with Scripture.

Face it, this God drowned BABIES and the yet to be born child in the womb of the mother in his flood for the sins of others.  Some say the babies themselves sinned…yeah…a commenter on my blog told me the Babies sinned.  Sorry, the MURDER of BABIES is EVIL!!!  About as EVIL as it gets.

 

Scriptural Proof That God WILL Save ALL Men

  Again, I do not believe in this mythical God or any of the other mythical Gods that all followers claim are true.  I only provide the scriptures to prove what is actually stated in Scripture.  Judge for yourself!

Notice something rather profound about the Scriptures I am about to post.  Notice the two post at the top of this blog regarding all evil being of God and that none have free will.  If man has no free will and ALL is OF God, to include Evil (if Evil has happened, have I (god) not done it?) then God couldn’t justly or righteously punish men for all those things for which HE has done. Therefore, those scriptures fit with the following and ALL men would be saved….if God is just and righteous.  

First, Check This ONE out!!!!

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, that publish peace; that brings GOOD TIDINGS of GOOD [not like Bush and the Christian Party of Family Values that bring infinite acts of eternal terrorism and war], that publishes SALVATION … The LORD hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of ALL THE NATIONS, and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD” (Isa. 52:7 & 10).  Wow, did you catch that one?  ALL!!!

Now for more Scriptural PROOF that God will save ALL MEN:

“For THIS is GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men…(WHAT?  Did it say ALL)… ALL men to be saved…” (I Tim. 2:3-4).

Some will tell you the word “WILL” is improperly translated and what it should be is the word “Desires“.  With such a comment, they think the argument is over and therefore their God will NOT save ALL men.  HOWEVER, I have no problem with them wanting to change the translations because GOD also stated “my Desires WILL be done” and “my pleasures will be done” and of course “my will be done”. 

Another Witness?

“For God has concluded them all [both the Israelites and the Gentiles—see verses 25-31] in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon ALL. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God? How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:32-36).

Another Witness?

“I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me” (John 12:32).

Again, he stated he would draw ALL men unto him.  Not some men, not 5 percent, not only those that believe.  ALL!!  It doesn’t state he will NOT draw all men unto him…does it?  Of course not.  Either he will draw ALL men or he Will NOT. Scriptures say he WILL! 

“For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified” (I Cor. 15:22).

Again, notice the use of the word ALL.  He didn’t say just those that believe will be vivified or only 5 percent.  He made it very clear…shall ALL.   If you don’t like it, tell it to God.  Apparently they are his words.

“To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, NOT imputing THEIR TRESPASSES [SINS] AGAINST THEM” (II Cor. 5:19)

Wow, as if the word ALL was not strong enough.  God seems to want to make it clear and say THE WORLD….is that clear enough?  Those that believe say God will NOT impute their trespasses.  

 “The Lamb of God, which takes away the SIN OF THE WORLD” (John 1:29).

“And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our’s only, but also for THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (I John 2:2).

OH MY, God had the nerve to clarify it more!!  Now he stated THE WHOLE WORLD!  Yet some will still DENY this word of their very own God.  They prefer to preach the false doctrine that a Moral God of Love will torture his children with fire for eternity.  Wow.

Some will say, NO, it is impossible, God will not save the world.   But what does God say?

With men this is impossible; but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE” (Matt. 19:25-26).

Now, I am going to provide you another scripture that demonstrates that being saved is not exclusive to those that believe.  Shocking, isn’t it?

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God Who is the Saviour of ALL MEN specially [specially does not mean ‘exclusively’] of those that believe” (I Tim. 4:10).

Holy Crap, did you get that?  

“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name [that name is JESUS] under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be saved” (Acts 4:12).  MUST?  If God the ALL Mighty says it MUST happen, if I believed in him my money would be on him.

 

Think about this:

“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one ALL  in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH, IN HIM” (Eph. 1:10). And so here is our Scripture which clearly states that “ALL” in both heaven and earth will become “ONE IN Christ.” Now they are no longer just given life in Christ, but now they are SAVED, they are “one in Christ!” 

Let’s read it again. A verse this important and all encompassing cannot be over emphasized:

“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together IN ONE [just as in harvest time] ALL IN Christ, BOTH WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, AND WHICH ARE ON EARTH; IN HIM.”

 Next book, Phil. 2:9-11:

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE should bow, of [those] in heaven, and those in earth, and those under [all who have died] the earth: And that EVERY TONGUE should confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD to the glory of God the Father.”

Must be important if God gives a SECOND WITNESS:

    “I HAVE SWORN BY myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto Me EVERY KNEE shall bow, EVERY TONGUE shall swear” (Isaiah 45:23).

Must be REAL important if God gives us a THIRD WITNESS:

    “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, EVERY KNEE shall bow to me, and EVERY TONGUE shall confess to God” (Rom. 14:11).

It is futile to say that I Cor. 15: 22 means only the all who are “in” Christ will be saved, even though the order of words is clear in all translations. It is not “all IN Christ” that is spoken of in this verse, but rather “in Christ ALL” that is spoken of. But later, after resurrection, after judgment, “in the dispensation of the fullness of times,” we learn that, indeed, it is “ALL in Christ” and now the “ALL” is EVERYONE IN HEAVENS AND ON THE EARTH—ALL OF GOD’S CREATURES!

By the way, for all those ultra-stubborn ones who say that, yes, all will bow their knees, and if they don’t God will break their knees and force them to confess that “Jesus is LORD,” let me present this Scripture:

    “…no man CAN SAY that Jesus is the Lord BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (I Cor. 12:3b).

Now then, when “ALL” in both heaven and earth are gathered into one “IN Christ,” absolutely no one is left out. This is also in perfect harmony with other Scriptures regarding the salvation of everyone in both the heavens and the earth, and even those dead and six feet UNDER the earth. 

TO BE “IN CHRIST” IS SALVATION

What does it mean to be “IN Christ” seeing that ALL IN HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL BE “IN Christ?”

“Therefore if any man be IN Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, ALL things are become new.”

How many will be reconciled “IN Christ?”

“To wit, that God was IN Christ, reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TREPASSES UNTO THEM…” (II Cor. 5:17 & 19).

Of course, how could it be otherwise? Jesus doesn’t make just “some” new creatures from the old, no, He makes “ALL THINGS … NEW.” And we all know this verse:

 ”There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are IN Christ Jesus…”

How many will be IN Christ? We read it: “ALL.” There is coming the time when there will be no more condemnation IN ANYONE ANYWHERE! Praise God and BELIEVE IT!

 Take a look at my post regarding the Book of Revelation and see that Chapter one and Verse one make it clear that it is a book of symbols.  Not Literal Fire burning Literal flesh.  Note, the Angel “signified” it ….signified means to “put into symbols”.  Christian read the book of revelations, see symbol after symbol in verse after verse and the moment they get the the verses on hell fire and the second death…it magically is LITERAL?  No, we are not buying that lie!

“Behold the Lamb of God, which TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD (John 1:29).  Either he takes away the sins of the world or is Doesn’t.  God’s word apparently says he DOES!

“And God shall wipe away ALL TEARS from their eyes and there shall be NO MORE DEATH [not a first death, nor a second death, nor a spiritual death, nor any ‘death’ whatsoever, ‘the last enemy being ABOLISHED isDEATH,’ (I Cor. 15:26)], neither SORROW, nor CRYING, neither shall there be a ANY MORE PAIN: for the former things ARE PASSED AWAY“ (Rev. 21:4) 

How can there be eternal torture if there is no more pain?  Again supporting what I have stated about this Hell Fire of eternal pain being a lie and showing that everyone will be saved.

“And He that sat upon the throne said, ‘BEHOLD! I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW“(Verse 5)!  

ALL THINGS NEW!

 

Proof Book of Revelation Not Literal – None Literally Burn

Remember, I am agnostic and I do not worship any of the many, many versions of Gods that many claim are the REAL God.

Notice my other posts on this blog and you see how the scriptures from all three (proof of evil, no free will, all will be saved) support each other.  This post is no different.  Let me explain, if there is NO Free will, and God created and causes ALL Evil then of course it would only be just for him so SAVE all Me. If one reviews the Book of Revelation they will notice that indeed God does Save All and that the Christian Fire and Brimstone Story is a LIE. 

As a matter of FACT, Verse One of Chapter One of Revelation spells it out perfectly!

How was the revelation to John recorded?  In Chapter ONE and Verse ONE we find the following:

    “…and he sent and SIGNIFIED it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1)

What does it mean to “signify?” Certainly this prophecy of the revelation or unveiling of Christ was written down (ver. 19), but it means more than just that. To “signify” has to do with signs and symbols. From Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary p. 1541, first definition of signify:

    “to make known by signs or words”

First definition of sign:

    “any symbol …that represents an idea”

That which, being external, represents or signifies something internal or spiritual.

The synonym for sign is: Symbol.

Are you following me?  It is NOT rocket science and even a child can understand.

Notice chapter after chapter of symbols, I counted over 120 symbols before I got tired of counting.  Christians have no problem admitting that the plank in the eye is symbolic or eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ is symbolic.  However, when they arrive at the verses on Hell Fire and the Second Death they magically proclaim it is literal.  Even after known what Chapter One and Verse One clearly state……IT IS SYMBOLIC!

Here is a small list of symbols you will find in the Revelation: 

candlesticks, hails, songs, wine, oil, book of life, water of life, eyesalve, harlots, whores, keys, poor, rich, naked, hot, cold, fire, sulfur, brimstone, sun, books, gold, cities, nations, kings, tongues, wings, hair, hands, feet……you get the idea!  Full of Symbols!

They actually want you to believe that God wrote nineteen whole chapters of Revelation giving us symbol after symbol and metaphor after metaphor, and then in chapter 20 switch to writing in literal language with literal meanings? Again, Absurd!  

Lets look at a few examples of the symbols that populate the enter book:

In Chapter Two: 

    Verse 22, Will Christ literally throw literal Jezebel into a literal bed where she will literally commit adultery with literal men?

    Verse 23, Will Christ kill literal children of the literal harlot, Jezebel?

    Verse 27, Will the saints beat the nations with a literal rod of iron into literal small pieces like broken pottery?

    Verse 28, Will Christ give the literal morning star to His saints? Where would they put it? What would they do with it?

    Chapter 3:1, Was the Sardis church literally alive and literally dead at the same time?

    Verse 4, Were members of the Sardis congregation wearing literally soiled clothing?

    Verse 7, Is there literally a metal key of David that is needed to open a literal lock

    Verse 12, Will Christ literally turn people into stone pillars in the temple?

Notice how this would fit perfectly and agree with the other three posts regarding Evil of God, All men Saved, and No Free Will!

Of course it doesn’t make sense that a Father that loves his children would actually one day torture his child with fire when he has ALL the power to show love and forgive them ANY sin.   It wouldn’t be Moral, Compassionate, Loving, Forgiving, Merciful to torture your children with fire….would it?  Absolutely Not!  Absurd! 

Now, look at the Scriptures that mention this Hell Fire and the Second Death: Revelation 19:20, 20:10, 20:14-15, 21:8, 20:11, 20:6 and 14:10

Religious types have been telling children (impressionable minds..i.e. child abuse) that this lake of fire is basically an eternal torture chamber and the final hell of separation from God and that it is impossible to be rescued from this hell that last forever.

FACT is that the “word of God” doesn’t teach of a literal, eternal hell of pain.  Of course it does speak of a lake of fire and a second death and this we can not deny.  

However it is NOT literal. Stay with me now.  

    ”I am the BREAD OF LIFE…” (John 6:35)

    ”For we, who are many, are ONE BREAD, ONE BODY, for we all are partaking of the ONE BREAD” (I Cor. 10:17).

    ”The Jews, then, murmured concerning Him, that He said, ‘I AM the Bread which descends out of heaven.” (John 6:41).

    ”I am the living Bread … Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world IS MY FLESH” (John 6:51).

But just as most are totally blind regarding the meaning of Scriptural metaphors today, they were also ignorant of Christ’s words when He spoke them:

    ”The Jews, then, fought with one another, saying, ‘HOW THEN CAN THIS ONE GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?” (John 6:52)

They also thought that metaphors were LITERAL! According to Scripture, Christ is the Bread that came down FROM HEAVEN, not the bread that comes from wheat out of the ground. Christ is NO LONGER flesh and blood. He has been raised with a SPIRITUAL BODY

    I Cor. 15:44, “…it is raised A SPIRITUAL BODY.”

    Besides “flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the Kingdom of God.“

We partake of Christ’s spiritual body, not literal flesh, blood and muscle protein.   Get my point?  It is no more literal than an actual plank of wood in a persons eye.  The plank of wood symbolizes a character flaw and isn’t a literal plank or beam of wood in a persons eye.

Lets continue,

False assumptions are that the “lake of fire” part of the verse is literal, lake of fire and second death are just terms for Hell, and the wicked, unsaved, and unbelieving will be tortured for eternity in the literal flesh (which is the second death).  What a CROCK and UNScriptural! NOT TRUE, according to “God’s Word”.

Lets go through a few examples from the Book of Revelation:

Notice who is thrown into this lake of fire:

   1. “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet … These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone” (Rev. 19:20).

      If the beast and false prophet are humans, then a real lake of fire would BURN THEM UP making it impossible for them to be tortured for ever and ever! If the beast and false prophet are supernatural, superhuman, or spirit in nature, then physical fire CANNOT HARM THEM in any way. So, if the fire is literal, it can serve NO useful purpose! 

   2. “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire…” (Rev. 20:10).

      As this is Satan, he is a spirit, and therefore CANNOT be tortured with REAL FIRE! Real, physical fire has NO effect on SPIRIT! Since God “makes His angels SPIRITS; His ministers a FLAMING FIRE” (Psalm 104:4), it isn’t likely that the Head of the “sinning angels” would be the least bit hurt by literal fire!  

   3. “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:12 & 15).

      ”The dead, small and great” are mortals resurrected to judgment and are still mortal. Therefore physical fire will BURN THEM UP, hence there can be NO torture or torment for ever and ever.

So now what will our Christians do with this evidence? Real, physical, literal fires, BURN UP physical bodies! And, real, physical, literal fires CANNOT burn or harm spiritual bodies! Sorry, but that’s just the way it is!

However, these verses say that there is “fire” and that those in it are “tormented.” So what kind of fire are we talking about and what kind of torment are we talking about?

Send me an email at Christsmith@rocketmail.com and I will try to give you a short answer.  I get around a hundred emails a week at this moment so please be patient if I do not reply quickly…..I try.  Otherwise, check back and I will add to this post.   Additionally, one should learn the meaning eternal, hell, for ever and ever and how it was translated from the greek.  Seems to change the actual meaning when it is translated incorrectly.  Go figure.

 

 

Mexican Fireworks (Dangerous)

They tape explosives to a large sledgehammer and then place a metal plate on the ground and then strike the plate with the sledgehammer….now why didn’t I think of that?

 

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up

Article Link:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html

Some readers have asked me to put all the various odd lies of Sarah Palin that the Dish has compiled in one helpful place. So that’s what we’ve done. A couple of months ago, I asked an intern to re-fact-check all of them to make sure new details hadn’t emerged that might debunk some. And I also asked to get any subsequent statements by Palin that acknowledged that she had erred in any of these statements that are easily rebuttable by facts in the public record and apologized and corrected. She has not. Since this was a vast project over the last ten months, it’s possible there are some nuances or errors that need fixing. Please tell us if you find one and we’ll acknowledge and fix. But it has been put through the ringer a few times.

After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn’t Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.

Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)

Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.

Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.

Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.

Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.

Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.

Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”

Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.

Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.

Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.

Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 – two years into her first term – and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.

Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.

Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.

Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies – a tax widely criticized by Republicans.

Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.

Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.

Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.

Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.

Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing – without elaborating.

Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.

Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.

 

Health Care Publican Option Why Do Republicans Want To Refuse Help To Those In Need?

I wonder why the progressives have so much heart for those in need of health care and the Christian Republicans are full of such hate towards helping those in need.  Too bad they are anything like the Jesus they claim to follow.

 

O’Reilly, God and Obama

Bill O’Reilly seems to have a problem with some Americans “disrespecting” religion.  Bill, have you heard of separation of church and state?  Legal doctrine states that we are to keep religion and government separate.  So when we don’t fly government jets over religious events it doesn’t mean anyone disrespects your religion or anyone else’s religion.  Should we fly jets over buddhist, hindu, muslim, jewish and other religious events and gay pride parades or just your religious events?  Wouldn’t it be better if you and religious “events” ask Obama to not fly over your events so less public funds are spent on your celebrations and instead given to those in american that are hungry?  Wouldn’t that be the Christian (religious) thing to support?  Just because we have done something for 40 years and then stop, doesn’t mean it is wrong, idiot.

It used to be that we would only allow white men to vote but we changed it because it was wrong.  It was like that for years and clearly, people like you would have complained that it changed.

Global strategy to stop global warming is to pray? Praying for global warming to end?  Really Bill?  Then DO IT!  I promise you that your God will NOT do anything about it.  How long was Bush the praying president in power, did his prayers end global warming or end world hunger?  NO.  Are we to believe that the “Christian” nation of American has never prayed for global warming to end or hunger?  Because apparently they are not as we still have the problem.

Secularist disrespectful?  I would say your religious views are disrespectful towards science, logic, intelligence by expecting we should respect supernatural claims?

“The USA has become the strongest nation on earth largely because of its Judeo-Christian traditions. Someone remind Obama.”  This country is in power because of scientific knowledge that religion disrespects.  Bill, do you think we prayed for weapons technology to land at our feet?  Or did we Americans work hard and develop that technology through science which doesn’t agree with your religion?  Did you notice that only 6 percent of scientist are religious?  Wanna bit that the ones that are religious are not really scientist?  Science involves the scientific method which uses evidence to determine truth/fact.  Pathetic!

Let us remember these words come from a man (Bill O’Reilly) the sexual harassing boss at Fox News that settled the sex law suit out of court (he was married when this took place and discussed his other sexual encounters with women other than he wife).  Remember, Bill O’Reilly the “fu.kit, we’ll do it live” Christian?

Bill, your an idiot and your religion along with all religions deserve less respect than science, truth, honest claims.

 

Republican/Christian Gayness, Exposed Again

 

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

Really, wasn’t this already obvious?  Republicans believe a snake and a bush talked.  The bush even knew how to write on stone, now that is impressive.  I am surprised the number was so high.  Just so happens the snake was a republican and the bush a liberal democrat.

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they’re Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were “conservative” while 52 percent described themselves as “liberal,” and 14 percent “very liberal.” The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

“These results were not a complete surprise,” said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to “the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues.”

The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.

Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that “many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration,” noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies.

Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in “God” or “a higher power,” only 51 percent of scientists claimed either.

“Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school,” said Keeter.

The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.

“The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research,” Keeter told the Huffington Post.

“It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party’s position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many,” he said.

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they’re Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were “conservative” while 52 percent described themselves as “liberal,” and 14 percent “very liberal.” The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

“These results were not a complete surprise,” said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to “the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues.”

The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.

Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that “many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration,” noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies.

Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in “God” or “a higher power,” only 51 percent of scientists claimed either.

“Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school,” said Keeter.

The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.

“The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research,” Keeter told the Huffington Post.

“It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party’s position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many,” he said.

 

More GOP Christian Hate: Don’t Vote For Hate

Audra Shay, accused of endorsing racism on Facebook, is favored to become the head of the Young Republicans tomorrow. John Avlon uncovers new details about her disturbing online comments.

Thirty-eight-year-old Audra Shay’s campaign to become the next chairman of the Young Republicans went from obscure to infamous over the past week, after The Daily Beast revealed details of posts of her Facebook account. Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that ““Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals,” and Shay responds eight minutes later with: “You tell em Eric! lol.”

“This is an outrage and I CAN NOT believe this nation has him as our leader! It makes me sick!” She posted a few minutes later: “My disdain for Obama is directly proportionate for his disdain of this country.”

Following those revelations, several Young Republican colleagues urged Shay to remove herself from tomorrow’s election at the group’s convention in Indianapolis—a request Shay, the favorite going in to the vote, has pointedly refused. Instead, she said that she was responding to an earlier post from her friend, and labeled criticism against her “political attacks” which “proves that my opponents will stoop to the lowest levels to steal this election from the jaws of victory.”

Now, The Daily Beast has obtained more troubling details about her online musings—despite clear attempts by Shay to scrub her social-networking pages clean. Specifically:

* In October 2008, in the wake of news that an effigy of Sarah Palin was being hung outside an affluent Hollywood home as an offensive Halloween decoration, Shay replied, returning to the “LOL” style that she employed after the “coons” comment: “What no ‘Obama in a noose? Come on now, its just freedome [sic] of speech, no one in Atlanta would take that wrong! Lol.”

She picked up the thread again the next morning with a clarification and a new insight. “Apparently I could not spell last night. I am wondering if the guys with the Palin noose would care if we had a bunch of homosexuals in a noose.”

* Posting and endorsing a conspiracy-theory video that attempts to prove that Obama believes he can only “ensure his own salvation” and “fate” if he helps African Americans above whites, complete with Barnum-esque captions (“LISTEN AS HE ATTACKS WHITE PEOPLE”).

* Numerous posts in which Shay says that President Obama is “anti-American” and has “disdain of this country.”

Collectively her comments are products of an increasingly common GOP mind-set I call Obama Derangement Syndrome, the right-wingers’ version of a virulent strain of obsessive presidential hatred that many liberals exhibited during the Bush years. Symptoms include comparing the president to Hitler and ascribing to him every evil and unconstitutional intention imaginable. It is accompanied by the belief that such a partisan fever is patriotic.Audra Shay, accused of endorsing racism on Facebook, is favored to become the head of the Young Republicans tomorrow. John Avlon uncovers new details about her disturbing online comments.

Thirty-eight-year-old Audra Shay’s campaign to become the next chairman of the Young Republicans went from obscure to infamous over the past week, after The Daily Beast revealed details of posts of her Facebook account. Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that ““Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals,” and Shay responds eight minutes later with: “You tell em Eric! lol.”

“This is an outrage and I CAN NOT believe this nation has him as our leader! It makes me sick!” She posted a few minutes later: “My disdain for Obama is directly proportionate for his disdain of this country.”

Following those revelations, several Young Republican colleagues urged Shay to remove herself from tomorrow’s election at the group’s convention in Indianapolis—a request Shay, the favorite going in to the vote, has pointedly refused. Instead, she said that she was responding to an earlier post from her friend, and labeled criticism against her “political attacks” which “proves that my opponents will stoop to the lowest levels to steal this election from the jaws of victory.”

Now, The Daily Beast has obtained more troubling details about her online musings—despite clear attempts by Shay to scrub her social-networking pages clean. Specifically:

* In October 2008, in the wake of news that an effigy of Sarah Palin was being hung outside an affluent Hollywood home as an offensive Halloween decoration, Shay replied, returning to the “LOL” style that she employed after the “coons” comment: “What no ‘Obama in a noose? Come on now, its just freedome [sic] of speech, no one in Atlanta would take that wrong! Lol.”

She picked up the thread again the next morning with a clarification and a new insight. “Apparently I could not spell last night. I am wondering if the guys with the Palin noose would care if we had a bunch of homosexuals in a noose.”

* Posting and endorsing a conspiracy-theory video that attempts to prove that Obama believes he can only “ensure his own salvation” and “fate” if he helps African Americans above whites, complete with Barnum-esque captions (“LISTEN AS HE ATTACKS WHITE PEOPLE”).

* Numerous posts in which Shay says that President Obama is “anti-American” and has “disdain of this country.”

Collectively her comments are products of an increasingly common GOP mind-set I call Obama Derangement Syndrome, the right-wingers’ version of a virulent strain of obsessive presidential hatred that many liberals exhibited during the Bush years. Symptoms include comparing the president to Hitler and ascribing to him every evil and unconstitutional intention imaginable. It is accompanied by the belief that such a partisan fever is patriotic.

Audra Shay, accused of endorsing racism on Facebook, is favored to become the head of the Young Republicans tomorrow. John Avlon uncovers new details about her disturbing online comments.

Thirty-eight-year-old Audra Shay’s campaign to become the next chairman of the Young Republicans went from obscure to infamous over the past week, after The Daily Beast revealed details of posts of her Facebook account. Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that ““Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals,” and Shay responds eight minutes later with: “You tell em Eric! lol.”

“This is an outrage and I CAN NOT believe this nation has him as our leader! It makes me sick!” She posted a few minutes later: “My disdain for Obama is directly proportionate for his disdain of this country.”

Following those revelations, several Young Republican colleagues urged Shay to remove herself from tomorrow’s election at the group’s convention in Indianapolis—a request Shay, the favorite going in to the vote, has pointedly refused. Instead, she said that she was responding to an earlier post from her friend, and labeled criticism against her “political attacks” which “proves that my opponents will stoop to the lowest levels to steal this election from the jaws of victory.”

Now, The Daily Beast has obtained more troubling details about her online musings—despite clear attempts by Shay to scrub her social-networking pages clean. Specifically:

* In October 2008, in the wake of news that an effigy of Sarah Palin was being hung outside an affluent Hollywood home as an offensive Halloween decoration, Shay replied, returning to the “LOL” style that she employed after the “coons” comment: “What no ‘Obama in a noose? Come on now, its just freedome [sic] of speech, no one in Atlanta would take that wrong! Lol.”

She picked up the thread again the next morning with a clarification and a new insight. “Apparently I could not spell last night. I am wondering if the guys with the Palin noose would care if we had a bunch of homosexuals in a noose.”

* Posting and endorsing a conspiracy-theory video that attempts to prove that Obama believes he can only “ensure his own salvation” and “fate” if he helps African Americans above whites, complete with Barnum-esque captions (“LISTEN AS HE ATTACKS WHITE PEOPLE”).

* Numerous posts in which Shay says that President Obama is “anti-American” and has “disdain of this country.”

Collectively her comments are products of an increasingly common GOP mind-set I call Obama Derangement Syndrome, the right-wingers’ version of a virulent strain of obsessive presidential hatred that many liberals exhibited during the Bush years. Symptoms include comparing the president to Hitler and ascribing to him every evil and unconstitutional intention imaginable. It is accompanied by the belief that such a partisan fever is patriotic.

Just read deeper into her dialogues. Before her friend derided the “mad coons” who were destroying the country, he made the reference to “Obama Bin Lauden”, as well as Muslims. The racism got the attention—the comparison of the president to a terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans is literally unremarkable nowadays in this circle of friends.

A newly discovered Facebook thread from June 30 shows her Obama Derangement Syndrome in full bluster, when she reacted with extreme displeasure with Obama’s cautious stance on the Honduran crisis.

“This is an outrage and I CAN NOT believe this nation has him as our leader! It makes me sick!” She posted a few minutes later: “My disdain for Obama is directly proportionate for his disdain of this country.”

A friend of Shay’s named Derick Moss soon weighed in, writing: “Here’s what I am getting tired of: If you call Obama a socialist, terrorist, anti-American, whatever, then you’re kinda calling me that, too, cause I voted for him and support him (for the most part). Or, you can claim that I didn’t really know what I voted for, and in doing so you’re kinda saying I’m ignorant and questioning my intelligence…”

Three minutes later, in response to Moss’ suggestion for rational discourse, Shay replied: “I think that you are ignorant if you believe this man is anything but anti american. He freely rights [sic] about Marxist philosophies. I never called him a terrorist, but if his policies are socialist (which they are) then what would you call him? His actions speak very loudly and his actions are very anti american. You just can not get past it. You might not like it but the truth is what it is.”

The truth is what it is”—it’s a statement that also applies to the indelible evidence that email provides into a person’s private views and personal character. Shay posts the Obama-attacks-white-people YouTube video with the line “This is incredible!!!!!!” even though a modicum of critical thinking shows that it’s mostly old quotes and sound bites taken out of context. When she jokes about Obama and nooses, it shows a telltale tone deafness and insensitivity to our country’s larger history of racism—a combination of callousness and cluelessness that compounds right-wing stereotypes rather than undoing them.

Her Facebook page, while scrubbed of all incriminating threads, still shows membership in not one but two Carrie Prejean support groups, “Stop Barack Obama,” “I Support Joe the Plumber,” “Mark Sanford (A True Conservative)” and “Fire Anderson Cooper and David Gergen.” She’s also math-challenged: Her other group memberships include “1,000,000 strong against Janeane Garafalo” (actual membership, 3,853), “1,000,000 against the bias of the mainstream media” (actual membership, 956) and “10,000+ Praying for Rush” (actual membership, 25). These are the online conservative versions of counting the Million Man March.

These new details come as hundreds of Young Republicans—many of whom, tellingly, given the party’s recent troubles with Generation Y voters, are pushing 40—descend on Indianapolis to chose their leader. Shay has posted on her Facebook page that, after seven months of traveling the country campaigning, she and her “true conservative” slate—dubbed Team Renewal—have the support of 520 Young Republican delegates, with 479 needed to win. At least one state delegation has called for Shay’s resignation from the race, but ugly anonymous emails about her chief rival’s support for same-sex civil unions have been circulated online to stem the tide (no word on how this jibes in young conservatives’ eyes with Dick Cheney’s support of gay marriage). A reactionary impulse against the “politically correct mainstream media” could even increase Shay’s support behind closed doors “There is a culture war going on inside the Republican Party,” says one of the attendees, Lenny McAllister, a co-founder of HipHopRepubicans.com. “For example, you’ve got the Christian right—including some from the Jimmy Swaggart crowd that have judged others publicly on family values only to cry ‘I have sinned’ themselves somewhere down the road—and then you have the folks that understand that you can have strong conservative principles but you can’t create a time portal to take us culturally back to the 1950s…. At some point, we will see one of two things from my party: either a decline that comes from our inability to move away from the image of an older, exclusive, white-males-only party or to a party that befits the Party of Lincoln, one of more diversity that reflects America today.”

A spokesman for Shay’s most important supporter, the governor of her home state, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, said his boss was traveling and couldn’t comment on these new details about Shay. But one of her better-known Facebook friends, conservative activist Grover Norquist, was keeping his distance. “Grover’s aware of the two candidates, but he doesn’t really have a dog in a race,” said a spokesman. “He’s friends with Audra on Facebook like he’s friends with everybody else. He accepts all friendships.”

Shay’s most recent post on her Facebook quotes the 23rd Psalm (“Yea, though I walk through the shadow of death, I will fear no evil…”)—she’s apparently in full victim/martyr mode, a far cry from the jaunty confidence she just displayed a few days ago in the face of the “coons” controversy (“amazed at all the fuss so here is what you need to know. The 6th song on the new Billy Currington CD is the most awesome song!”). Tomorrow’s vote will resonate beyond its usual dimensions. At a time when the GOP is increasingly old and regionally isolated, it is up to young Republicans to modernize the party. This requires confronting the mistakes of the past—and turning the page.

 

John Ensign Scandal Escalates: “It’s Not Good” Oh, The Christian Party Of Morals

or a long while, the inspiring tale of Mark Sanford’s Latin American jaunt on or near “the sex line” had gripped America with its romantic melodrama. You can read more about it in the forthcoming Tropic Of Capricorn 2: Buenos Aires Nights, by Henry Miller. But as much as the heart wants more from the Mark Sanford story, like “positions explored” and “quantity of white zinfandel consumed,” it’s now time for the body to get really interested in this whole John Ensign affair story.

So, the dilly: John Ensign, Nevada Senator, copped to having an affair with Cynthia Hampton, who was for a time on his campaign staff. The television media got all worked up about it, saying things like, “This is bad news for Ensign, one of the GOP’s presidential contenders.” And people like me replied, “Wait! John Ensign is a presidential contender?” later adding, “Seriously, you can’t possibly think this guy was ever going to be a presidential contender.” And Ensign was thought to be working out all his difficulties with some group called the “C Street Foundation,” which describes itself as a “Bible study group” but is actually some sort of detox facility for Congresspersons who are way into sexcapades.

That’s when the even shinier Mark Sanford story hit the news, along with Sarah Palin’s “Oration On The Verbal Frappe Currently Coursing Out Of My Mouth In Alaska, Because I Have No Political Advisers Who Are Worth A Good God Damn.” And Marion Barry straight up stalked a lady, in DC, because he is crazypants. But now: Ensign!

Driving Ensign back into the news are escalating exchanges between Hampton’s husband and Ensign’s allies over who got paid how much and for what, why, and when. It’s all crazy confusing, the sex-scandal equivalent of the Purple Ticket Inauguration fiasco, but I think we have a handle on it:

– Yesterday, Hampton’s husband said that Hampton was paid $25,000 in severance when she left Ensign’s campaign.

– Ensign’s camp disclosed that Ensign’s parents had actually paid out $96,000 to the Hamptons. But not because anyone wanted this affair kept a secret! No, no! Ensign’s parents “decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time,” and these monies were “consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others.” So, TOTALLY NOT some kind of end-run around ethics requirements at all! What grown up senator wouldn’t want his mom and dad giving large sums of monies to random friends, anyway?

– Doug Hampton continued to make claims that he and Ensign were negotiating further payments, in the “millions of dollars.” Ensign’s camp, all the while, has insisted that Doug Hampton was making “exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits.” Doug Hampton also released letter between Ensign and Cindy Hampton, and granted TV interviews that further stirred the pot.

– Then, Doug Hampton said that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was present, with Doug Hampton, at some sort of “meeting”/intervention to cure Ensign of his sexlexia and give the Hamptons all manner of scrilla for their trouble. In an interview, Hampton said, “These men were the ones that said, ‘What we need to do is get Doug Hampton’s home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado.’” Colorado being on the other side of the “sex line.”

For a long while, the inspiring tale of Mark Sanford’s Latin American jaunt on or near “the sex line” had gripped America with its romantic melodrama. You can read more about it in the forthcoming Tropic Of Capricorn 2: Buenos Aires Nights, by Henry Miller. But as much as the heart wants more from the Mark Sanford story, like “positions explored” and “quantity of white zinfandel consumed,” it’s now time for the body to get really interested in this whole John Ensign affair story.

So, the dilly: John Ensign, Nevada Senator, copped to having an affair with Cynthia Hampton, who was for a time on his campaign staff. The television media got all worked up about it, saying things like, “This is bad news for Ensign, one of the GOP’s presidential contenders.” And people like me replied, “Wait! John Ensign is a presidential contender?” later adding, “Seriously, you can’t possibly think this guy was ever going to be a presidential contender.” And Ensign was thought to be working out all his difficulties with some group called the “C Street Foundation,” which describes itself as a “Bible study group” but is actually some sort of detox facility for Congresspersons who are way into sexcapades.

That’s when the even shinier Mark Sanford story hit the news, along with Sarah Palin’s “Oration On The Verbal Frappe Currently Coursing Out Of My Mouth In Alaska, Because I Have No Political Advisers Who Are Worth A Good God Damn.” And Marion Barry straight up stalked a lady, in DC, because he is crazypants. But now: Ensign!

Driving Ensign back into the news are escalating exchanges between Hampton’s husband and Ensign’s allies over who got paid how much and for what, why, and when. It’s all crazy confusing, the sex-scandal equivalent of the Purple Ticket Inauguration fiasco, but I think we have a handle on it:

– Yesterday, Hampton’s husband said that Hampton was paid $25,000 in severance when she left Ensign’s campaign.

– Ensign’s camp disclosed that Ensign’s parents had actually paid out $96,000 to the Hamptons. But not because anyone wanted this affair kept a secret! No, no! Ensign’s parents “decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time,” and these monies were “consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others.” So, TOTALLY NOT some kind of end-run around ethics requirements at all! What grown up senator wouldn’t want his mom and dad giving large sums of monies to random friends, anyway?

– Doug Hampton continued to make claims that he and Ensign were negotiating further payments, in the “millions of dollars.” Ensign’s camp, all the while, has insisted that Doug Hampton was making “exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits.” Doug Hampton also released letter between Ensign and Cindy Hampton, and granted TV interviews that further stirred the pot.

– Then, Doug Hampton said that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was present, with Doug Hampton, at some sort of “meeting”/intervention to cure Ensign of his sexlexia and give the Hamptons all manner of scrilla for their trouble. In an interview, Hampton said, “These men were the ones that said, ‘What we need to do is get Doug Hampton’s home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado.’” Colorado being on the other side of the “sex line.”

Coburn then said that Hampton was not telling the truth:

“John Ensign hasn’t put me in a tough position at all,” said Coburn, a housemate of Ensign’s at a Capitol Hill home owned by a Christian fellowship. “The person that’s deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what’s the motivation here.”

– And Coburn, naturally blamed the media for all of this: “You’ve got two families that are back together and you guys are going to help tear them apart. What do you think their kids are thinking about what you’re writing right now? You’re helping tear apart two families that are back together — you need to quit.”

– But now, Republicans are starting to sour on Ensign, big time:

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said of Ensign’s situation: “It’s not good.” Cornyn took over for Ensign after the 2008 elections as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is charged with getting Republicans elected. Cornyn said he has heard no talk of Ensign stepping down.

And, on top of that, there are “raw feelings cited” among Ensign supporters, which underscores the point: LUBE IS IMPORTANT. There: not afraid to be servicey!

– And, just to cap things off, Ensign is now left to fend off charges that he actually committed a crime in all this mess:

Also today, a Washington ethics group today called for a Department of Justice criminal investigation into whether Ensign gave his mistress considerably more than $25,000 in severance pay that may have gone unreported.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said it has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to order a criminal investigation after Doug Hampton disclosed the severance payment in an interview Wednesday.

“As despicable as Sen. Ensign’s conduct has been, it now appears it also may have been criminal,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. “The Department of Justice has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans – even high level political officials – are held accountable for their actions.”

So there you have it! Seems like only weeks ago that Mark Sanford had eclipsed Ensign’s scandal as the more interesting one. Now, Sanford’s coming off looking better, because of the increasing perception that his was something of a heartfelt, romantic struggle. There’s poetry and love letters and flowery exhortations and garment-rending. Meanwhile, all the parties in the Ensign case, mucking about over money, are driving the story in a tawdrier and less-relatable direction. That said, as a citizen roaming the streets tonight, the only one you should really worry about encountering is Marion Barry.

 

Christian Argument Against Right To Health Care: “Should food be a basic human right?”

I can’t believe Christians/Republicans have a problem with providing health care to anyone in need and yes, I think food is a basic human right.

Hey Christians, we will have spent over a trillion dollars on the war the Party of Christian and Families Values along with their Christian President (George Bush) lied and deceived and tortured in order to justify.  A trillion dollars to kill/murder, torture based on lies and you have a problem with providing people health insurance?  How pathetic could you be?  Jesus would be proud, wouldn’t he?  I am sure your version would be. You and Fox News have no problem supporting illegal wars that cost over a trillion dollars tot cause suffering and death but you are against health care for those in need?  WTF?

On MSNBC this afternoon, Firedoglake’s Jane Hamsher engaged in a spirited exchange with Townhall’s Jillian Bandes about health care reform. After Hamsher mentioned that she was speaking out in favor of the public option as “a sixteen-year cancer survivor,” Bandes replied, “I’m sorry I’m not a cancer survivor, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize a public plan.” When Hamsher argued that access to health care should be a human right, Bandes interrupted her and threw up her arm, asking “should food be a basic human right?”

Bandes might not like it, but for most of the world, food is considered a human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” The U.S. voted for the declaration.

 

Amazing, Christian Republican Leaders Behaving Like This.

Inhofe defends calling Franken a ‘clown’: ‘He kind of looked like a clown when I was talking to him.’

I am amazed that Christian Republican leaders behave in such a manner.  Calling other grown men clowns only exposes their level of immaturity and inability to lead by working together to solve the problems of America.  How do they expect to work with someone when they are calling him a clown?

This party of Christian and Family values continues to witness to the rest of us and demonstrate the morals of their belief system and those that follow it.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) extended a nasty welcome to his newest Senate colleague, Al Franken, last week, telling the Tulsa World, “I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota. … I don’t know the guy, but…for a living he is a clown.” Inhofe is now rushing to defend himself, pointing out that he and Franken “physically embraced” when they ran into each other on Tuesday. However, he still insists that Franken is a “clown”:

On Tuesday, Inhofe again insisted his comments last week were not meant to be derogatory.

He said the “clown comment” did come up during the chance meeting.

“But believe me, he knew. He kind of looked like a clown when I was talking to him,” Inhofe said.

Asked by Bill Press to respond to Inhofe last week, Franken simply replied, “I don’t know how Sen. Inhofe regards clowns, but it might be an incredible compliment.”