James A., Ph.D, Paralegal

In my professional opinion, the following is what I believe happened:

Daniels knew the risk of a defamation suit, so she never wanted to say she slept with Trump. She approached Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, first, and said she MAY HAVE slept with Trump (she was quite evasive on Jimmy Kimmel so she has a pattern of this kind of elusive ambiguity and ‘read-between-the-lines’ gimmicks). Daniels knew that with the media hosting several ‘sexual assault victims’ against Trump during the election, this would be a hot story, but it’s better to try getting a pay day then to have to prove the story if challenged.

Cohen then took it upon himself to offer her a pay day ($130,000) thinking he’s doing Trump a favor, and would foolishly think that Trump would reimburse him for being such a fine, thoughtful lawyer. So Cohen offered to pay for her silence over a story that was likely a bluff to begin with. That Cohen acted on his own explains why Trump’s name was not used in the non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”), and why there was no signature (not even of the supposed alias, David Dennison). Why any lawyer would think that using an alias would constitute a binding contractual obligation is beyond me, but I digress.

As a year passes, Daniels thinks she can get more than $130K because several media outlets are now offering her a lot of money to dish on Trump, but she acts as if she can’t speak of “it”, she can simply give the IMPRESSION that something happened without ever having to actually confirm it. To bolster this impression even more, her lawyers then sue Trump over the NDA, not because Daniels actually plans to tell a story, but because the lawsuit actually puts the NDA in the public. Hence, Daniels can speak through her lawyer without Daniels actually confirming the affair so as to not violate the NDA, but it’s not quite defamation against Daniels if it’s the lawyer saying “it” and not Daniels (the lawyer can simply say he “thought” that’s what his client meant), and by putting the NDA in the spotlight, it gives the appearance that SOMETHING must have happened or there wouldn’t be an NDA in the first place. In other words, Daniels and her lawyers have constructed a slick legal maneuver to get around the NDA, while at the same time, using the NDA as the ‘evidence’ that an affair actually occurred because the NDA makes it appear as if Trump has something to hide. It’s a way of making petitio principii a bona fide legal maneuver.

Daniels’ lawyers have thrown a monkey wrench into the plot, though. Perhaps inadvertently. They publicly claimed that Daniels can speak about the “affair” without being in violation of the NDA because Trump never signed the NDA which makes the contract void. The question then remains, if that were true- WHY HASN’T SHE? I believe she’s simply waiting for the biggest offer from the likes of CNN, MSNBC or Megyn Kelly and the highest bidder gets a (not THE) story. Think about it, what’s the real risk in speaking out? If these allegations were true, do we REALLY think that Trump’s going to enforce an NDA that he claims no knowledge of? Daniels’ lawyers have surely thought of that as well. If Trump litigated a breach of contract, it would be a tacit admission to the allegations. The smartest thing mainstream media could do to implicate Trump would’ve been to pay Daniels millions of dollars to breach her NDA and dare Trump to sue her over it. So then why hasn’t she spoken? Because Trump was never involved in the first place, and the agreement was solely between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels without Trump ever being privy to the NDA. To speak out over a story that she knows is false would give her and the mainstream media a bloody nose. But as long as she can continue to play a game of well placed ambiguities she stays protected…and gets paid for it.

Trump probably first found out about the NDA when the FEC questioned Cohen and it was leaked to the media. Trump would’ve likely then called Cohen to his office and asked him why he did such a stupid thing like let some porn actress dupe him into a settlement when what Cohen should’ve done was brought this to the attention of the president and called her bluff. It wasn’t an accusation of sexual assault so it likely wouldn’t have affected the campaign. If the other 13 accusers and the Billy Bush tape didn’t slow the campaign down, one has to wonder what Cohen was thinking here. Cohen panicked.

The media will do anything to sabotage Trump’s presidency even if that includes trying to destroy all of his family members and his marriage. There’s even the possibility that the Deep State and the media want to create a scenario where after Trump hides an affair after the birth of his son with Melania, Melania becomes so enraged that she wants Trump dead; the Deep State then arranges the assassination and blames it on the First Lady.  (Think about the speculation surrounding the Kennedy assassination regarding Jackie Kennedy’s motive for supposedly assisting in the assassination of her husband after discovering JFK’s multiple affairs, including one with Marilyn Monroe.) Granted, I believe the initial motive of the Democrats is to link the payment of this NDA to an election campaign issue as a grounds to impeach Trump, but they know they can’t prove Trump knew about it, so I believe there’s a much bigger, long-game with this Stormy Daniels issue.

I believe Cohen made a foolish choice and expected to get compensated for it. I’m reminded of a time where I bought my mother something expensive for her car that I thought she needed without getting her permission first. My mother didn’t want the item and certainly it was unreasonable to ask for reimbursement because I made the decision on my own (a refund was not an option). Cohen owns this, and there’s no evidence that Trump actually did what Daniel’s said, or that he knew about the claims that made up the substance of the NDA. But I’m sure at this point, Daniels will come up with a Stephen King novel if she gets paid enough.

On a personal note, as a Christian I am disgusted by many of Trump’s past trysts, and I don’t think Trump has a very knowledgeable spiritual life. But the reality is actual conservatives had a Hobson’s choice: elect an immoral boss who at least wanted to honestly help the country with policies that we agreed with, or express our outrage over his immoral behavior by letting a murdering, deceitful Communist/Socialist in office that would’ve destroyed what’s left of any freedoms America had. Those Never Trumpers who call that an erroneous ‘lesser of two evils’ argument are…well…idiots.


UPDATED: 2/8/18

Dr. James A

Twitter has for the first time placed restrictions on my account. I exposed Twitter’s Shadow Ban in 2017 by acquiring a list of accounts Twitter had on a black list. Project Veritas also recently exposed Twitter for targeting conservatives in an undercover operation that was caught on camera.  I have also shown that Twitter was responsible for compromising Sara Carter and Sean Hannity’s accounts these last few weeks. Thus, I’m not surprised that Twitter has finally censored me. I now have legal standing to sue them! Thank you Twitter, see you in court.

This is what Twitter suspended me over

That AIDS was initially called “Gay Related Immune Deficiency” is a historical fact. Of course, I get called names on an hourly basis on Twitter, but because the accusers/harassers are liberals, Deep State sycophants that worship the ground George Soros and Hillary Clinton walk on, they get away with it. And naturally, you don’t see the context of the conversation, nor the vile things that were being said to me in that thread.

The second tweet is another historical fact. The Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years. Even those who don’t follow the Bible know this fact. So now, it’s “hate speech” to give Bible and History facts! This fact is always forgotten about whenever liberal media wants to constantly vilify ALL white people (and the fact that I am an Indigenous American from the Chumesh Tribe makes this even funnier!)

Furthermore, these 2 tweets are nearly A YEAR OLD.

It is interesting though that some people from the James White Cult (Twitter.com/DrOakley1689, director of Alpha & Omega Ministries) threatened to report me for being “anti gay”, because they don’t like me exposing him for the hypocrite and lying wolf in sheep’s clothing that he is. So, there’s that, too.

Twitter has turned into the very Nazis that they claim they are censoring. If you are conservative politically, and Christian, expect Twitter to throw you in the Gulags. However, now you have to beware of these radical Calvinists who stoop so low as to act like they’re gay in order to silence their theological adversaries.


*UPDATE 2/8/18 I was sent a screenshot of a devout James White sycophant who admitted to reporting me. ffff

Dr. James A., PhD

Following yesterday’s article on the Trolley Car, we follow up with the other atheist who offered the following objections to the moral argument for the existence of God. Mind you, the presentation is quite childish, which follows the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to insult and mock Christians. As I’ll demonstrate, such an attitude is quite presumptuous given the utter vacuous nature of the following arguments.

Just to recap, the moral argument was stated in 2 ways: If God does not exist, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. Objective moral duties and obligations exist. Therefore, God exists. And the second that a moral law implies a moral law Giver. If the premises of the first argument are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. The arguments below from Tony Murphy did nothing to attack the premises of either argument.

  1. To start, Tony commits the fallacy of appeal to the stone. He gives no value for x or y so one can’t really determine what kind of argument he’s referring to because he can’t possibly claim that I gave no grounds for my argument given that he’s ignored the major and minor premises of the moral argument. His argument is a mere assertion that no argument was given because he disagrees with the conclusion. In fact, the rebuttal itself is “ex recto”.
  2. The second opening argument appeals to the stone as well, not to mention, is questing begging (asserting swaths of evidence without citing any, not that he even offered just what this swatch of evidence is supposed to support).
  3. In his argument against the terms “subjective” and “objective”, he is punting to the either/or verses the both/and system of logic, as well as the old arguments against the meaningfulness of language (although doesn’t specifically make that argument, it’s clearly implied by the silly semantic attack on the distinctions between these terms, and how they apply to moral arguments). First, I assume that Tony expects me to believe he’s making meaningful statements about the lack of meaningfulness of language, so that part of his argument is self-defeating. Secondly, in attempting to eliminate the existence of dichotomy by punting to both/and version of logic, he makes the fatal mistake of maintaining that this is the only correct view of morality. However, that creates its own dichotomy because he posits that either his view is correct to the exclusion of all others, or my view is correct. If his view is merely subjective, then there’s no reason for me or anyone else to take him seriously. If it’s objective, then it needs to provide an ontological explanation for its grounding.
  4. Empathy and Solidarity. First of all, his statement that “rules are the antithesis or morality. Real morality requires thought, and fixed rules prohibit thought” is sheer sophist nonsense. He assumes that there is a proper way to think in reaching the right conclusions which is itself, a RULE of thought that follows basic principles and rules of logic. Furthermore, this statement does nothing to explain the foundations of morality. It simply describes certain behaviors, and posits them as a ‘just so’ morality. Moreover, by assuming there is a “real” reality, there must be a “fake” or lesser morality. No foundation is offered as to how the difference was determined, so where exactly the mind hides while it waits for the standard to give him something to think about is a mystery.
  5. The ad hominem attack about what he knows today about our “idiot mythology” isn’t even worth addressing. The arguments used by atheists against the stoning of rebellious children in the Old Testament has been addressed thoroughly by Paul Copan in Is God A Moral Monster? so I won’t belabor the argument here. However, given that Tony never raised the issue of the Old Testament setting, God’s right to judge evil, nor any explanation at all as to what standard he is relying to determine that any act was evil to begin, this amounts to merely argumentum ad misericordiam.
  6. Morality is a simple contract, says Tony. What determines whether the person drafting the contract is right about his/her terms? Where there’s a social contract, there’s a social contract writer, and that writer must have had some premise on which to ground the rules for the society to live by. And just how does one go about determining which society’s contracts should be followed? Are these rules only right for that society, or are they binding on all people at all places and times? If they are only proper for our society, then aren’t we guilty of imposing our morality on Nazi Germany for condemning the murder of Jews? The majority of their culture “signed a contract” that tolerated and encouraged the murder of Jews (we’ll not mention Hitler’s argument from Darwinianism as to why Jews were an inferior race). Thus, on what basis does Tony condemn Nazi Germany? If culture decides its own morality, then the atheist can’t claim that the Nazis were objectively wrong.
  7. Moreover, the idea that we “rewrite and modify” the contract presumes that some transcendent standard exists outside of the herd. If moral obligations exist prior to the natural selection of these somehow crafted genes of morality, then evolution itself can’t serve as the explanation. “New situations” and “new understandings” are quite arbitrary given that the fittest of the culture could  simply decide that continued care of the elderly is a financial burden on the herd, so it’s best to just euthanize him. With no objective standard that transcends the herd that applies to all people in all situations and places and times, there’s no reason why such a decision can be deemed “evil” (in fact, it’s being practiced in Norway).

Tony also accused me of committing the fallacy of “affirming the consequent”. This argument, is itself, fallacious because affirming the consequent is a FORMAL fallacy that has to do with the rules of categorical syllogisms, and Tony is using it as an informal fallacy. Affirming the consequent does not apply when the minor and major premise of an argument have been distributed properly, and avoids other rule violations (such as 4 term fallacies). The premises being true (and he never offered any objections to the premises raised by the moral arguments), the conclusion NECESSARILY follows.

Atheism has no explanation for why I ought to be moral because it can not explain how moral duties and obligations obtain from an evolutionary foundation. They can explain past moral behavior in a descriptive manner, but they can’t offer a reason why I should be moral in the future. Atheism consistently confuses the explanation of morality in terms of knowing how people react and behave and describing their outward conduct (epistemology) with the question of where did morality come from (ontology)? What gave morality it’s “oughtness”?If evolution is the explanation, on what basis did evolution “know” that there would be a herd that would need moral guidance so much that an uncaused, undesigned set of morals would show up in the gene pool that just happened to have the effect of a conscious aversion to murder, albeit, without even knowing yet whether propagating the species was even a good thing to begin with, or why punishing humans for willfully murdering another human would be different from punishing dogs for raping other dogs. As William Lane Craig stated, “it’s as if nature knew we were coming”. Not only is evolutionary explanations for morality beyond credulity, it claims a supernatural clairvoyance about the needs of the future species which is why even Dawkins admits that the universe “appears” designed.

Unfortunately, I stopped watching the NFL given that they’ve turned a sport into a cesspool of immorality, and recently, an arena for politics. So I won’t be able to see Tony showing his “arse” on television, although I think we’ve all seen enough of it in his writings.



For more on addressing the fallacious reasoning behind these social contracts, see Mark Linville’s, Moral Argument, Greg Koukl’s Relativism, Feet Planted Firmly In Midair, and J. Budziszewski, Is Morality Neutral?

Dr. James A., PhD

In having a small Twitter debate with about 10 atheists, we discussed the foundations of morality (or rather, I discussed their foundations, the others punted to evolution). When I demonstrated that morality is not something that can be empirically tested and therefore can not fall under the umbrella of scientism, the Trolley Car Problem was raised to show that science can offer laboratory level evaluations of morality, and hence, there’s no need to posit God as the ontological foundation of morals because science can explain them through natural means.

However, that objection is somewhat of a red herring and a category fallacy. The argument was about the grounding of morality, not what dilemmas can be trumped-up by hypothetical scenarios. A laboratory may conduct experiments that observe behavior, but it can’t tell you how much a moral decision weighs, or what color thoughts are. It also can’t give you a scientific explanation as to why the scientist ought be honest in his interpretation of the data (perhaps deceiving people is the greater good because the population is too ignorant to understand the experts).

The reader can view the Wikipedia version of the Trolley Car Problem (since this was the reference cited by the atheist). It is called a “problem” because the solution appears to present an impossible conundrum that would demonstrate that there are no objective moral duties or obligations because nobody can point to a single set standard that would offer the right decision to make in the dilemma. However, there’s an enormous problem with this logic that serves to prove that objective moral duties and obligations actually do exist, and that the dilemma doesn’t serve as a valid rebuttal against objectivism (let alone as an objection against the grounding of morality).

First of all, whether the Trolley Car Problem attacks the grounding of morality is non sequitur. The dilemma merely shows that the expressions of morality, how they are implemented may be applied in different ways. But what’s overlooked is WHY this is even a dilemma in the first place! The dilemma actually presupposes that human life is valuable, and that regardless of what decisions CAN be made, the dilemma presupposes that some decision-whatever that may be- OUGHT to be made based upon some standard that saves the greatest amount of lives. Furthermore, it also presupposes that a decision that would result in the deliberate taking of a life would be objectively wrong in the event that killing one person to save another would be the “proper” choice. Any choice made is founded on the presupposition that human life has value. The dilemma does not posit that a person may make the wrong choice if the subject were a dog or porcupine. The dilemma is there because it is a HUMAN life at stake, which shows the innate recognition of the value of human life over animals. If a person were to pull the lever to save a wounded bird resulting in the death of children, we would conclude that person was insane.


The dilemma does nothing to refute that objective moral duties and obligations exists. Rather, it must presuppose them in order for this to even be accurately deemed a dilemma. If some transcendent standard of right and wrong does not exist, then why OUGHT I care who lives or dies in this dilemma? Perhaps the fat man is a serial killer and killing him would’ve been the right decision after all because it helps protect the species. But then again, why is protecting the species good in the first place?( The survival of the species presupposes that there is a good purpose for mankind, but even Richard Dawkins admits that evolution proves that we are made in a world that is purposeless. Even if these survival genes were naturally selected, how did natural selection know what would be good for the species in order to know how to craft the genes that would choose what is good? I digress.) Perhaps the serial killer only kills other sociopaths and in evolutionary concepts taken to their most logical conclusions, that helps propagate the species and is therefore a “good” thing. Atheists and evolutionists have no reasonable answers for why someone OUGHT to be moral, or why they SHOULD do what is right.

The Trolley Car Problem merely explains descriptions of different behaviors (or different possible behaviors), but this reduces morality to conduct, and that’s not the argument. It does not lead to a valid critique against the ontological foundations of morality, but rather, reinforces them. Thus, the Trolley Car Problem really isn’t a problem at all. It is merely a spin on the so-called problem of evil, which presupposes that there’s some standard of justice and righteousness that some action or inaction has deviated from. If there’s no God, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. Objective moral duties and obligations exists, therefore, God exists. Where there’s a moral law, there’s a moral lawgiver, and this is a basic fact known to even the atheists that claim not to know so.


I will address more on the difference between the order of knowing and being in part 2 of this as there is one more objection written by another critic in this same conversation. Atheists and evolutionists often confuse epistemology with ontology in arguing for the existence of morality, and that will be taken up in my next response.


The James White Cult-Part 1

Posted: September 3, 2017 in Uncategorized

[This is ONLY the rough draft, but I’m publishing some of it early since I said I’d have it by the weekend. There’s just too many screenshots to upload to make this a quick post, but there’s enough below that readers will get the point about why I refer to James White followers as the “James White Cult”. I will add to this post and fix errors later]

Dr. James A., PhD

Part 1 of this series will focus on the cultic mindset that the worshipful sycophants of James White of Alpha & Omega “Ministries” display in support of him. Scripture tells us that if a ruler hearkens to lies, all his servants are wicked (Proverbs 29:12). This is certainly analogous to the instant case where James White’s followers employ an “any means necessary” strategy to suppress dissent against White, rivaled only by the most vile social justice warriors like Antifa. These Saul Alinsky type tactics are indicative of White’s leadership.

White’s followers are made of mostly anonymous accounts. Those on the Twitter #Oldpaths hashtag are well aware of the years of harassment they’ve experienced from thousands of these accounts. Many of White’s supporters created parody accounts of his detractors to stalk them, and follow their every online move. Most recently, this has been done to me, Pastor Steve Camp, Brannon Howse, and several others who have opposed White’s recent participation in Islamic interfaith dialogues.

Now granted, under most circumstances it would be erroneous and fallacious to attribute to White actions that are merely done on his behalf (a sort of guilt by association). However, White has not only acknowledged these accounts, BUT ACTIVELY ENDORSES AND ENCOURAGES THEM

DrAchMonitor to whom White is responding along with my own Twitter account tagged (DortChristians) is a parody account made by Fred Butler of Grace To You Ministries. Although I have repeatedly emphasized that Dr. James Ach and Dr. James A (me) are not the same, White’s cult has found the accusation a useful gaff in trying to aggravate me. But nevertheless, all references the White cult makes regarding “Ach” are meant to identify me. Why that’s important to them is a mystery, but I digress.

It is also of interest that well it’s perfectly acceptable for White to consult with parody accounts, to point out White’s errors and hypocrisy is “stalking”. How one doesn’t see the irony in praising a parody account while in the same breath denouncing “stalking” is beyond me. But it does show quite a breach in White’s logic, or simply reveals his true motives in the lengths he’s willing to go to discredit his adversaries. But, since White has “single-handedly” saved the Muslim world, there is nothing off limits in protecting your Superman. 

Here are just a few examples of the most vile, vitriolic, nasty, and egregious posts from White’s cult. Once you have read them, you will be able to see right through the Alinsky tactics they use in accusing White’s adversaries of doing the very thing that THEY specialize in. It is ironic that when I opened the door to debate on of these parodies, Calvinist Fish, he would not answer whether or not Jesus is Lord, and I have long suspected that some of White’s most ardent supporters are atheists and Muslims.

First of all, White’s supporters brag out “trolling”. The following is from James White’s daughter’s best friend, Katie Boettcher (“Catbo222”) 

Here is “Pastor” Nick Johnson, making fun of the plight of my minor children. (Screenshot and explanation) It is one thing to point out a minister’s adult child involved in theological error or blatant unbiblical practices (as with James White’s daughter supporting Jesuit teacher and feminist, Karen Swallow Prior-whom James White himself has criticized for using ‘gay affirming’ language, and his daughter’s endorsement of an LGBT musical group, Pentatonix), but quite another to use a tragedy that has occured to your minor children not in your custody against you because you’re not adult enough, or Christian enough, to handle criticism of your favorite religious personality.

Next, we have the White Klan using some course homosexual jokes, and a song about “ding a lings” to describe me, which James White seemed to really appreciate

Of course, “The Monitor” tried to explain away the blatant sexual references of the Chuck Berry song, but any casual perusal of the lyrics can clearly see its not about high school bells.

White’s followers even stooped so low as to try and get my account suspended by saying that I was attacking LGBTs because I was criticizing them 











The Fraudulent Codex Sinaiticus Defended By the James White Cult

Dr. James A., PhD

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against the Codex Sinaiticus is the evidence of its usage of anachronistic etymology that proves it is NOT a 4th or 5th century manuscript as contended by modern Bible “scholars”, but rather a modern forgery written by Constantine Simonides. James White, who defends the Sinaiticus, has never addressed this issue (not even in the debate with Chris Pinto where the White Cult claims victory because Pinto didn’t answer questions to their satisfaction that had nothing to do with the arguments Pinto raised in Tares Among the Wheat. Such red herrings are a standard Whitean debate tactic), so White and his cult who point to the only time in White’s history (the Simonides controversy isn’t argued in White’s book) where the Simonides controversy was ever addressed by White, can not merely point to this “debate” with Pinto as an answer to this charge of anachronisms against the Codex Sinaiticus.

A brief introduction to this controversy is as follows. Constantine Tischendorf, who claimed to have “found” the Sinaiticus touting it as an ancient manuscript, accused Simonides of lying about an ms he’d made known as The Shepherd of Hermas prior to Tischendorf’s publication of Sinaiticus. Long story short, Tischendorf had to retract his accusation and Simonides was exonerated. However, what snagged Tischendorf when he published Sinaiticus was that an exact match of the Shepherd of Hermas was contained in the so-called Codex Sinaiticus. When Constantine published the Sinaiticus, Simonides recognized his own work and markings, and called Tischendorf out on the lie that the Codex Sinaiticus was an ancient manuscript, the earliest among any known extant mss.

Both the Shepherd of Hermas and Sinaiticus contain Greek words that were not in use during the era in which Tischendorf and his ilk claim for the age of the codices (not to mention the sheer coincidence that Codex Sinaiticus just happened to contain the two Greek copies of Hermes and Barnabas known to have been previously attributed to Simonides).

From The Forging of the Sinaiticus, William Cooper, citing Greek scholar, James Donaldson notes,

“The late origin of the Greek is indicated by the occurrence of a great number of words unknown to the classical period, but common in later or modern Greek. Such are Βουνος, συμβιοσ (as wife), με (for μετα), πρωτοκαθεδριεις, ισχυροποιω κατεπιθυμω, ασυγκρασια, καταχυμα, εξακριβαζομαι, and such like. The lateness of the Greek appears also from late forms; such as αγαθωτατης, μεθισταναι, οιδας, αφιουσι (αφινουσιν in Sim. Greek), καπεκοπταν, ενεσκιρωμενοι, επεδιδουν, ετιθουν, beside ετιθεσαν, εσκαν, λημψη, ελπιδαν, τιθω, επεριψας and ηνοιξας, ειπασα, χειραν, απλοτηταν, σαρκαν, συνιω, συνιει; and some modern Greek forms, such as κραταουσα for κρατουσα, have been corrected by the writer of the manuscript. The lateness of the Greek appears also in the absence of the optative and the frequent use of ινα after ερωταν, αξιω, αιτουμαι, εντελλομαι, αξιος, &c., generally with the subjunctive, never with the optative. We also find εαν joined with the indicative. Εις is continually used for εν, as εχουσιν τοτον εις τον πυργον. We have also παρα after comparatives, and peculiar constructions, as περιχαρης του ιδειν, σπουδαιος εις το γνοναι, απεγνωρισθαι απο. And we have a neuter plural joined with a plural verb, κτηνη ερχονται. Most, if not all, of these peculiarities now mentioned, may be found in Hellenistic writings, especially the New Testament; and some of them maybe paralleled even in classical writers. But if we consider that the portion which has now been examined is small, and that every page is filled with these peculiarities, the only conclusion to which we can come is, that the Greek is not the Greek of the at least first five centuries of the Christian era. There is no document written within that period which has half so many neo-Hellenic forms, taken page by page, as this Greek of the Pastor of Hermas.”

Cooper, Bill (2016-04-08). The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus (Kindle Locations 898-907). Kindle Edition.

To bring this down to laymen’s terms, let’s use a simple analogy. If Pope Gregory XVI (who paid Tischendorf for his endeavors, which is a little odd given that Tischendorf was supposed to be a Protestant, and Pope Gregory is notorious for burning such “heretics” in a dungeon) had written a letter claiming that he never met Tischendorf, and in that letter, said that he was drinking Pepsi when he learned about the Codex Sinaiticus for the first time, we could safely infer that this letter was not really written by the pope given that we know when Pepsi was invented. Rather, the letter would have been written by someone in recent times. The Codex Sinaiticus and Shepherd of Hermas both have “Pepsi” spilled on them (and in many places, the authors had write AROUND the “Pepsi”. More on the “wormhole” problem at a future time).

There is even far greater evidence extant that the Codex Sinaiticus is even more recent than the 5th century, but the standard paradigm that surrounds the modern version controversy rests on whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th or 5th century production. If it is not-and it isn’t-every modern version onlyist is defending a lie when they point to the so-called “oldest and best” manuscripts in support of their Westcott & Hort Onlyism defense of modern translations, and their attacks against the King James Bible.

The anachronisms contained in both the Codex Sinaiticus and Shepherd of Hermes give not only credibility to Simonides claim of authorship, but at most, prove that both manuscripts were not/are not early manuscripts as claimed by modern version onlyist “scholars”, but rather a modern hoax. The entire modern version debate builds its house of cards on the Codex Sinaiticus. With the foundation being built on a lie, every manuscript that bootstraps its relevance to the Sinaiticus falls, and thus the question James White asks in his book, The King James Only Controversy, “Can You Trust the Modern Translations?” is a resounding “absolutely NOT!”.

Dr. James A., PhD 

Leftists have been spouting often about assassinating Trump. From Kathy Griffin to Snoop Dogg, Johnny Depp, and Madonna,  and even a senator today, there’s been no shortage of rhetoric about taking Trump out. However, what Leftists are well aware of is the resolve of the Right to avenge Trump if such measures were taken. So, how does the Left carry out their plot, while at the same time avoid being sought after by angry, Patriotic Right Wingers? Simple. HAVE A “RIGHT WINGER” CARRY IT OUT!

Many believe that Lincoln was assassinated because of legislation to free slaves. Many think JFK was assassinated for supporting the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (although Roger Stone has thoroughly covered who was behind it). So there’s historical precedent-at least as far as the narrative goes, no matter how misinformed-for a president to be shot by racist groups he’s opposed.

The media is CONSTANTLY making Trump call out White Nationalists, Neo Nazis, and other White Nationalists by name (even though they-the Left- have never called out groups by name, like Antifa, or even ISIS). This creates the idea that a KKK member will become so outraged at Trump’s rhetoric that they will attempt to Abe-Lincoln president Trump. Trump will then be assassinated, and the patsy will be a so-called ‘right winger’ with ties to some White Supremacist group. The Right would be prevented from exacting vengeance because the Left can’t be blamed for the hit. This allows the Left to not only get rid of the president, but also lets them sleep a little better knowing that former Navy SEALS loyal to the president won’t be kicking their doors in at 3 a.m.

Yes, there are many other reasons the leftist globalists are pushing the race card, but there’s a peculiar reason why they have forced Trump to repeatedly “disavow” these groups, even though there are NUMEROUS clips of Trump doing so (at least 17 or so were documented by Sean Hannity and Mark Dice). I believe the reason the Mainstream Media is pushing Trump so far on this is because they are creating the narrative NOW for the cover story in the future.

Dr. James A., PhD

This will be written for those already familiar with the issues Brannon Howse raised against James White about interfaith dialogues with Muslims. I plan on doing an in-depth article on that subject alone, but this will be a short response to someone who objected to a short missive I wrote about those who were attacking Brannon for not revealing his church location. The “response” (if you want to call it that) was by pastor Ben Boeshaar. I will first post what I’d written in its entirety, then post Ben’s response piece by piece.

Ben’s reply will be highlight in black adjacent to the numbered paragraphs.

  1. claims this in his drudged up paper. Here’s what I really said. Who’s making things up?”

    Ben attempts to claim that he did not “call” Howse “Hitler”. This is a childish game of semantics. Of course he’s not literally Hitler given that Hitler is dead. But if I say someone reminds me of a child molester, or their actions are right out of the playbook of Ted Bundy, there’s only a semantic difference from calling the person a child molester or serial killer. Given that the analogy used by Ben is a comparison to an actual serial killer (Hitler), that’s an appropriate analogy to those among James White’s followers who will likely be offended by it.
    Furthermore, Ben gave absolutely no precedent for showing how blocking someone on social media is akin to acting like Hitler. If someone spams my phone, and I don’t want to hear what they’re selling, am I now Hitler because I blocked someone’s “freedom of speech”? This sounds like the liberals now suing President Trump because he blocked them on Twitter. Unless there’s more than a mere similarity to a smaller part of this post hoc propter hoc explanation, there’s no good reason to make this causal connection.
    Ben contends that his Hitler reference was not about where Brannon went to church, but about being blocked. However, because the block was about a troll who was harassing Brannon about where he went to church after he already gave a thorough explanation as to why (which I explained in the missive), the Hitler reference is directly related to the pejorative insults about Brannon not giving out his church location. Nevertheless, this is IRRELEVANT. Regardless of whether the Hitler comment was related to Brannon answering the church question, or about blocking, it was clear that the source Brannon’s ire was that he was being compared to Hitler. THIS issue was never addressed by any of Brannon’s critics. It wasn’t even addressed by Ben until I pressed him on the issue. However, he refused to refer to James White as Hitler when it was shown that White has blocked several people (including me) even after Ben admitted that White should not block people (see conversation here)
    Furthermore, Ben argues that “silencing someone is out of Hitler/Stalin’s playbook”. This is quite the equivocation on silencing. What Hitler did was literally silenced dissent. They (SS) didn’t merely block someone from calling their office. They shot them in the head. Ben was not silenced, gassed, sent to Syberia, or shot in the head. He was still free to post what he wanted anywhere in America, on any social media platform, without any of the consequences that followed those who digressed from Hitler or Stalin. This comparison is simply ridiculous. To say that Brannon has no right to block someone on his own personal social media page is just ludicrous. But again, as shown above, that ad hoc rule doesn’t apply to James White, Phil Johnson, or anyone else that has blocked Brannon Howse.

    2. FALSE! Where on attends church says much about their theology & worldview! Church membership = accountability & agreement

    This is a classic straw man. There’s nothing in this paragraph that says where a person goes to church is irrelevant to their theology. So Ben is answering his own voices on this. That paragraph has nothing to do with anyone’s doctrinal beliefs or worldview, so it was completely irrelevant to what I wrote. The paragraph is explaining why Phil Johnson and a few others were requesting Brannon’s church information. In fact, given that I clearly stated that those wanting to know about Brannon’s church to see if he has any accountability is precisely what Ben is implying in this response! His rebuttal is actually an AGREEMENT with what I said. It was never a contention that people should not be accountable to church authorities, so Ben has argued a point that was never argued.
    3.  FALSE! It’s the wrong question. Howse offered up the fact that he did attend church. I simply asked what church. (link)
    This doesn’t even come close to answer my argument about the double standard of why Howse is even expected to be held accountable given that the argument was since White was excused for the interfaith dialogue because it was not done in an official church capacity, then Howse shouldn’t be held to a different standard. This point goes completely unanswered. Whether Howse offered up the fact that he went to church has absolutely nothing do with that argument in this paragraph. And even THAT isn’t true. Howse “offered up” the fact that he went to church because Phil Johnson made a public declaration-based on gossip-that he did not. So Brannon was answering a criticism that he didn’t go to church, that doesn’t obligate him to explain where, given the circumstances with the Islamic gunman on video threatening him.
    Furthermore, that paragraph is clearly not directed at Ben, but toward all those defending James White on the grounds that his interfaith dialogue did not violate any church standards since it was technically not a church worship service. How Ben assumed that this paragraph was related to him, with the need to respond to something that had nothing to do with that paragraph is bewildering.

    4.  FALSE! I know for a fact that Brannon Howse went to a listener’s Elders & demanded discipline for disagreeing with him!


    What? It’s false that Timothy Rogers had his church contacted by White’s followers? This has nothing to do with what I said. This analogy is about Timothy Rogers being harassed by White’s followers. The point of the argument was that it is likely, given the history of White’s followers, that they want his church information to do the same thing they did to Rogers and others. Ben’s “rebuttal” is not a rejoinder of the argument, but a tu quoque (“you, too”) fallacy. He’s not refuting what I wrote, he’s saying that “well, Brannon did it, too”. That’s not an answer, or a rebuttal. Even if that was true, that response is in the wrong category of the arguments listed and doesn’t address what I wrote.

    Secondly, are we just supposed to take Ben’s word for it? that he “knows for a fact” that Brannon went to a listener’s elders? Whether he did or did not is irrelevant to the argument, but perhaps it was because she was being disruptive to the church environment AFTER HER ELDERS HAD ALREADY TOLD PREVIOUSLY HER TO STOP . It’s amazing that Ben is ridiculing Brannon for not being accountable to church elders merely over the fact he hasn’t told his critics what church he goes to, verses a woman who was in actual rebellion against a previous injunction given to her by her church authorities.


    Given that Pastor Ben didn’t address half of the arguments, and the ones he did answer were merely straw men that failed to offer any substantive responses to the actual content of the article and arguments raised, it is clear to me that Ben simply wrote a quick response to say that he responded, not that he actually took the time and thought through his arguments. As it stands, the arguments I raised have still went unanswered and unrefuted.

    Pastor Ben can also not simply explain away his Hitler/Stalin comments. White’s followers have been quick to claim that Brannon has used acerbic rhetoric, but it’s been my experience, and that of many, MANY others who are not even familiar with Howse (and some, not familiar with White), that it is WHITE’S crowd that are being vitriolic. There’s no question that some of us on both sides have made unwarranted pejorative comments, but with White’s crowd, it’s a habitual practice in virtually EVERY interaction.  It’s something we see in the media all the time from liberals. Democrats start riots, cause violence, and then blame conservatives for their reaction (even if there is no reaction). And no, I’m not saying that White’s followers are Democrats. White does have some sincere and genuine Christians supporting him, even though I believe they are sincerely wrong on many issues,  but the large majority of his visible following are using the exact same tactics of manipulation, false guilt, name calling, and virtue signaling that we see from the extreme Left. Even Ben, who prides himself on not being in the vitriolic crowd, left me with the gem below.

    Pastor Ben needs to repent and apologize to Brannon Howse.

    I only have one more thing to say about this tonight!

Dr. James A., PhD

The fake news New York Times reported that hackers have been targeting nuclear facilities in Kansas. We’ve heard this before when NYT’s sister, Washington Post, fabricated a similar claim. Naturally, the culprits of this so-called attack are…..the Russians. Shocking, right! Just when the Russian narrative was beginning to die as a result of testimony in Congress from Comey and Jeh Johnson,  CNN admitting the entire Russian narrative is a “nothing burger”, and the fact there was never any evidence of collusion in the first place, the globalist, foreign-owned NYT keeps finding ways to keep the Russian conspiracy going. Why anyone with common sense would believe that offline data storage is subject to outside interference is beyond me. Granted, the report states they are merely trying to get personal credentials, but that still requires someone to be on the inside of the plant to use the credentials, and to pull something off like a complete nuclear meltdown would require numerous events to occur at the same time, something that just can’t be pulled off from any hacker group from outside of the country. But most liberals are low-information zombies that will believe anything the mainstream media feeds them.

What NYT is now attempting to do, is to create a panic in America by spewing a manufactured crisis that hits a little closer to home than a Russia-interfered-with-the-election scenario. Liberals are rioting over the election results, but if they thought that, in addition to Russia’s supposed election interference, that Russia is also now threatening to melt America by crashing a nuclear facility, well that just adds insult to injury and gives liberals justification to physically attack Trump and his supporters in an all out coup on the grounds of protecting American lives from a clear and present danger and imminent threat.

The other frightful side of this is that it could also be used to stage a false-flag attack. In other words, globalists cause the melt down at the Kansas facility, blame it on Russian hackers, which will then lead to all out chaos. These elite scum are not immune to staging a massive crisis (remember 9/11). Globalism lost on November 8, 2016, and Democrats, Never Trumpers, George Soros, et al, are desperate to regain the momentum they’d gained within the last 8 years under Obama. They’ve invested billions to destroy America from within and isolate us from our allies in Europe (part of the Islamic immigration strategy). Nobody invests that kind of money and just quits. The greater the desperation, the more massive the crisis needed to implement the globalists much touted mantra, “order out of chaos“.


I’m going to update this article a little later after I gather some more information. But it’s a serious enough threat that I needed to help get the ball rolling now on the conversation. My friend DAHBOO77 has caught on as well, and will be following this story.

UPDATE: This false flag of causing a meltdown may also be a precipice for an EMP attack that would cripple the power grid.  Ironically, Kansas has one of the largest productions of gas and coal energy in the United States.  A staged EMP would cause chaos with millions out of power. Of course, this would also shut down the internet. The power would probably be restored long enough for CNN to tell us what ‘really’ happened with the claim that they can’t yet bring the internet back up.

Dr. James A., PhD.

I am a graduate of Calvary Christian College & Seminary (“CCCS”), a school started by Jack Van Impe and Michael Johnston (and also the alma mater of Dr. Kent Hovind). I have an EARNED PhD, preceded by a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in theology. I also have an earned degree from law school which help start my career as a paralegal and professional investigator.  I have been an avid reader all of my life so much of what I have learned I would have learned in spite of my education in Bible college. Unfortunately, in a day where sophistry is more important than common sense, you almost have to have some kind of degree for people to take you seriously about anything. The same books you use as a college textbook are often available at a local library.

However, CCCS is not an “accredited” Christian college, and this seems to be a “problem” for many of whom I debate. “Problem” I say, because a school being either Christian or unaccredited is used by my skeptic foes as an ad hominem means to discredit my arguments. The tactic of attacking a person’s arguments based on their education goes all the way back to Jesus’ day when the enemies of Christ attempted to discredit His teaching because He didn’t graduate from a prestigious state-owned college (John 7:15). The same crowd also used this argument to discredit Christ’s disciples. (Acts 4:13). In fact, I have heard more objections to my PhD by atheists, skeptics, agnostics and liberals than objections to my actual arguments on any given topic. Ironically, most of the objectors are anonymous who themselves have no formal education. Moreover, if only the ‘educated’ can properly understand the content of a specialty, then nobody else would be able to comprehend someone like Dawkins unless they have an equal education, which begs the question as to why any atheist would attempt to use his arguments against a theist/creationist given that he must admit to his own lack of academic bereftment.

The objection always boils down to whether or not a person received their degree from an “accredited” school, or that my education is not valid because it was derived from a Christian college. Not only is this NOT a valid objection, it commits the genetic fallacy (attempting to discredit an argument solely on the grounds its source). If my degree was NOT valid, what would that have to do with the truth value of arguing that, for example, whatever begins to exist has a cause? Furthermore, the argument works both ways. The atheists I debate with engage in a special pleading fallacy by ignoring this fact. For example. The modern-day atheist champion, Richard Dawkins, does not have a degree in biology, yet his followers accept his views as a biologist as irrefutable proof that evolution is true. If atheists were consistent, they would admit that Dawkins’ opinions on biology as expert testimony would commit the fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam (improper authority). Moreover, Dawkins also does not have a degree that majors in philosophy, and therefore would not be qualified to give an expert opinion as to why an evolutionary scientist should be honest about their findings-a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. (For more on demonstrating that evolution is far more a priori philosophical nonsense than it is science, see Phillip Johnson’s, Reason In the Balance)

Accreditation is only a recent development in our education system (1950s). Thus, if atheists were fair and consistent, they would ignore Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hume, Russell, and a handful of other atheists, agnostics, and skeptics of whom all modern arguments for atheism have their nexus of whom never held “accredited” degrees. Furthermore, most of the colleges they graduated from were at the time Christian universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Westminster, etc…). So if lack of accreditation and graduating from a Christian college discredits a person’s education, then all of atheism’s founding fathers should be discarded a priori before any debate relying on their premises can begin.

Accreditation is normally governed by statute. In other words, a board of people decide on what is appropriate to teach at a college, and how it should be taught, and the college receiving accreditation must comply with their regulations. Ironically, the atheist doesn’t seem to object at this point that the state dictating what any Christian college should teach in order to obtain accreditation would be a violation of the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine. The atheist is completely comfortable with maintaining this double standard, e.g., Christianity should not be supported or endorsed by government, but the government must put its stamp of approval on your Christian education or it’s not a valid degree. Of course, we know that the real motive behind the atheist arguments here is to actually get rid of theism altogether, so being exposed for a little hypocrisy is a small price to pay in achieving the greater good of the fight to completely privatize Christianity.

If accreditation was required to make all degrees valid, then no Christian university would be safe so long as the board responsible for issuing accreditation can be manipulated by personal bias against creationism, theology, Christian ethics, and the Bible. In fact, my position is that accreditation is a tool to do just that (after having read the Communist Manifesto, Humanist Manifesto, and Rules For Radicals): keep ‘religion’ out of the public school system, and indoctrinate our next generations with Marxism, marriage ‘equality’, moral relativism, and a disdain for the theistic foundations on which our country was built*. Today’s college students are often encouraged to engage in riots and protests, and even given college credit for it. They are offended by the slightest hint of disagreement that doesn’t kowtow with their violent relativism. One college professor was recently seen at a rally for President Trump hitting a Trump supporter over the head with a bike lock.

Sorry, but I’ll take my ‘non-accredited’ degree over the safety-pin standards of accredited colleges any day. Calvary Christian College & Seminary has a GRUELING work schedule. It is no diploma mill. You won’t pay for your course, and get a degree in the mail. YOU HAVE TO EARN IT. In fact, I did more writing and read more books to earn my degree at CCCS then I ever did in public school, or even law school (except for the case-law readings). A Christian college should not be subjected to state ‘accreditation’, and no Christian president of a Christian college should ever subject his college to one. It is an utterly silly argument to subject a person’s desire to be educated according to his/her beliefs to a system that dismisses those beliefs outright, and then attack that person’s arguments or opinions based on such faulty presuppositions about education.


For more on CCCS position on accreditation, see President Mike Johnston’s statement, here.




*A recent video made by Millie Weaver at Infowars shows how Marxism is being taught in college campuses across America.