Archive for April, 2016

Dr. James A, PhD

Before Target stores began opening the doors of their bathrooms to all genders, Target had already announced that it is eliminating, inter alia, gender-specific toys and clothing,

Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance. For example, in the kids’ Bedding area, signs will no longer feature suggestions for boys or girls, just kids. In the Toys aisles, we’ll also remove reference to gender, including the use of pink, blue, yellow or green paper on the back walls of our shelves,” ibid.

But how is this not specifically designed to attack children? Over 1 million people have now signed a petition vowing to avoid business with Target over their new transgender bathroom policy, mostly out of concern for children. Why has Target chosen to eliminate the gender distinctions between young boys and girls, but not adult women and men? Why not eliminate signs that distinguish between men and women’s products and label them “just humans”?

For example, Target maintains sections of their website that cater specifically to womens’ clothing needs. If a customer walks into the department store, there are sections for maternity clothes. I’ve never seen a pregnant male try those on for size,  but why the disparity? There is a bra section that is within the women’s department. Why not put the bra department in the children’s toy section, or the men’s shoe department? If gender distinctions are discriminatory, and don’t matter anyway, why separate the adult departments by gender at all? Why even have a women or men’s department? Let women browse for shoes among the men’s shoes! How about eliminating the make-up section? How many transgenders do you see modeling make up for commercials and ads? Why is that? Because women are the primary consumers for Revlon, Maybelline, etc.. and a women doesn’t want to see how that make up looks on a man before she buys it. Yet, if Target were consistent in their policies, they wouldn’t be so worried about such an effect that may have on their profit margin, they’d go ahead and offend the majority of make-up-buying women the same way they’re offending a majority who don’t want their wives and children sharing bathrooms with perverts. Nevertheless, Target hasn’t completely abandoned profit over policy.

Why is there a women’s shoe department separated from the men’s shoe department? Perhaps men and women’s feet grow differently? Nah, that would be gender discrimination and even “hate speech” to admit that, wouldn’t it? Yet Target is aware that consumers prefer not to hunt all over the place to find something that fits their individual- GENDER- specifications. It’s like going to the music section looking for a CD, and the staff have failed to keep the artists in their proper order. Instead of hunting through every single CD to find the one you’re looking for, you simply give up and go somewhere that’s a little more organized. If Target were to amalgamate all of their products in a gender neutral manner, they would probably lose the rest of their business and they know that.

Regardless of what politically-correct liberals say, and no matter how they attempt to reconstruct, and redefine sexuality, once a month every woman is reminded…that she is a woman, and she’s not going to want to go to the men’s department to find the proper sanitary products. Yet if Target were truly consistent about their reasons for implementing and promulgating such policies, then their treatment of the “men’s” and “women’s” sections of their stores should be no different than the childrens’ toy and clothing departments.

Children are more impressionable and easier to brainwash into politically correct thinking, and that’s why these new age globalists are inventing policies that target children. Do you really think Target had a particular demograph of parents from their client base that were concerned about the “harm” of gender-specific toys? I have yet to hear young boys complaining that there aren’t enough barbies in the boys sports section.

The elimination of gender-specific toys isn’t based on a bona fide need to eliminate real distinctions of genders, it is based purely on attempting to condition children to grow up believing they are something that they are not. That is precisely why Target began such policies toward children and not adults because most adults that make up the majority of their customer based are already settled in what gender they are. An adult woman does not go to the men’s underwear department to look for tampons or bras. Yet if Target were consistent, we should expect to see neutral groupings like that all of the time.

Furthermore, Target, along with many other stores, still abide by anti-discrimination laws between men and women, and sexual harassment laws. Most sexual harassment cases are perpetrated by men against women, and the complaints from women are normally that they were targeted because they are women. Will Target modify its sexual harassment policies because such an accusation implies a gender distinction? Ironically, on April 25, 2016, Target published an article on its support of advancing women in leadership. Wouldn’t endorsing such programs, among Target’s support for other human rights endeavors, be a capitulation to the gender distinctions they are seeking to eliminate?

The absurdity level is limitless when man attempts to eradicate the God-ordained distinctions of genders. Male and female created He them. Genesis 1:27, 5:2. There’s really a bigger picture here though, and it’s a blatant attack on Christians. Please see our article on the LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap.

Please also check out our Transgender Bathroom Solution! 

Dr. James A, PhD

Prince was a part of the most destructive times of my life. As a teenager and in my early adult years as a guitar player and vocalist for several rock bands, Prince embodied everything I wanted to be as a rock star musician. I had watched Purple Rain probably 20 or so times. Along with Dream Theater (John Petrucci), Yngwie Malmsteen, Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani, Paul Gilbert, Nuno Bettencourt, Ritchie Kotzen, Vinnie Moore, Michael Angelo Batio, et al, Prince had an enormous influence on my guitar playing as a teenager. As a troubled teen, I was obsessed with guitar and singing. I mastered all of the “shredders”, and learned to sing like Sebastian Bach from Skid Row, and “Mili” from Steelheart. I was in several different bands, ran karaoke as a DJ, and partied like it was 1999. My life revolved around drugs, alcohol, fornication, and the dream of living like a rock star.

In the early 1990’s, I felt empty. My father had led me to Christ at a young age, and my grandparents were devout Bible believers, and I knew that the life I was leading was going nowhere fast. A few friends of mine invited me to a charismatic church, and I was introduced to bands like Stryper, Petra, Deliverance and Angelica. I had no idea that Christians could “shred” like Oz Fox and Dennis Cameron, and that “Christian” singers like Michael Sweet and John Schlitt could wail like Mili. However, my experience eventually became no different from when I played in the secular bands, so I went from an Assembly of God church to a more conservative church- the United Pentacostal Church. I never did speak in tongues, and that caused me to quit church because obviously God didn’t want me, and I apparently didn’t “have enough faith”.

Then I was invited to a youth conference in Michigan where I met Peter Ruckman. The “chalk talk” was about the Devil’s attempt to strike out Christians. I thought I was the only one in the audience and Ruckman had someone who’d followed me around and gave him fodder on me for his sermon. I wasn’t about to get struck out, so I started reading Ruckman books, learned the truth about the charismatic movement and tongues, Christian Rock, and went to an independent Baptist church where I eventually surrendered to ministry under the preaching of Dr. Joe Miller.

I have had a rough road since those days, and had backslidden a few times, and in between went to a few Bible colleges and law school, and just recently-and FINALLY-earned a PhD from Calvary Christian College & Seminary. I’ve been active in ministering to homeless people, prisoners, and passing out tracts almost every day of the week. My drive to seek the lost, study and memorize the Scripture, was mostly a result of talking to Dr. Ruckman at that youth conference.

Prince led a life of debauchery, drugs, promiscuity, and thought he was a god. Prince will answer for the lives he helped destroy by his influence. On the same day Prince died, Peter Ruckman also passed away at 94 years old. Ruckman trusted in the finished work of Christ, and even at 93 years old, in poor health, was in the streets preaching about the cross, and about the real Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), the Lord Jesus Christ.

Say what you will about Ruckman, his “weird doctrines” (often a misrepresentation and distortion of things he actually said and wrote), his crude speech, or accuse him of claiming the KJV replaced the so-called originals and was a “reinspired translation”, what you can not do is negate the passion he had for lost people, and for his defense of the Bible. I have never seen a man more wrongfully criticized, misquoted, unfairly vilified, and misrepresented than Dr. Peter Ruckman, even by some of my favorite Baptist preachers. Nevertheless, Ruckman stood strong, he never retired, and kept fighting for the fundamentals of the faith, for the integrity of the King James Bible, and the battle for the souls of people like Prince on their way to hell up to his last dying breath.

Ruckman is one of the reasons that I chose to follow Christ and walk away from a destructive life that in part was influenced by men like Prince. I never agreed with Ruckman on everything, but he will be one of the influences in my life that I will be eager to meet in heaven.

I don’t know how Prince spent the last hours of his life, but I hope anyone reading this that was a fan of his doesn’t spend their last days in rejection of Christ. I would like to leave off here with a sermon by brother Ruckman on “Things You Can Lose”  and read the tract at the top of our website, “You Die, Then What?”


Click HERE for another excellent posthumous commentary on brother Ruckman by the Bernick Family.



Peter Ruckman Obituary

In Memory of

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016
Peter Sturges Ruckman, November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016 Matthew 25:21, “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” Dr. Ruckman is survived by his wife Pamela Ruckman, married 27 years, Pensacola, FL; and ten children; Diana Walker, Alabama; Priscilla and Michael Thornton, Pensacola, FL; David Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Mike and Lynette Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Peter Jr. and Heidi Ruckman, Chicago, IL; Jeremy and Valerie Huggins, Wichita, KS; Bryan Huggins, Ft. Walton Beach, FL; Michael and Lydia Huggins, Pensacola, FL; Laura Ruckman; Rachel Ruckman; 18 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren. He is preceded in death by John Hamilton Ruckman, father; Mary Armstrong-Ruckman, mother; Marion Ruckman, sister; and John Ruckman, brother. Peter Sturges Ruckman was born physically on November 19, 1921, to John and Mary Ruckman in Wilmington, Delaware.
At a young age the family moved to Topeka, Kansas, where he grew up while going back to Wilmington during the summertime. He had a brother, Johnny, and a sister, Marion. Coming from a long line of military men, he followed in their footsteps by enlisting in the Army and served in World War II as a DI in hand-to-hand combat in the Philippines and spent time in Japan monitoring the radio broadcasts at Radio Tokyo. But at the age of 29 years old, he enlisted in a different Army. A spiritual Army. On March 14, 1949, Dr. Ruckman signed up in the Lord’s Army by accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior at the radio station in Pensacola, Florida. He was lead to the Lord by a Baptist preacher, Bro. Hugh Pyle. At one time he wanted to be a “30 year man” and retire from the Army. He now has done over two “30 year hitches” in the Lord’s Army, the “right” Army.
Through the 67 years he has served the Lord, his vision and his burden was to reach lost souls for Jesus Christ and to teach people that we have a Bible that is perfect and infallible, that you can hold in your hands – the Authorized King James 1611 Version. He had a burden especially to reach young men for Christ and get them rooted and grounded in the Word of God so they would be equipped to defend that Book against the agnostic scholars who try to rob you of your faith in your King James Bible. From this desire, Pensacola Bible Institute was started. It continues today from Dr. Ruckman prayerfully and wisely choosing a man, Brian Donovan, to train and equip to carry on the work of the school and church after he has gone on to Glory. Dr. Ruckman had pastored for well over 50 years; including a church in Bay Minette, AL, Brent Baptist Church, and Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola since 1973. He also was the Founder and President of Pensacola Bible Institute which was started in September of 1965. Dr. Ruckman was a man of many talents. He was a Preacher, Teacher, Street Preacher, Artist, Writer, played the tuba and the harmonica, had studied the Oriental religions, studied martial arts – Taekwondo and Aikido, and started playing hockey as a goalie at 68 years old with his last game being on his 84th birthday. He also played racquetball, enjoyed mullet fishing, was an avid reader, liked to garden and had a small “truck farm” as he called it, and was still swimming “laps” with a snorkel at 93. He had a profound knowledge of the Scripture and its correlation with History. God gave him a special gift to be able to tie in world events and History to the Bible. And, then, of course, he dearly loved “kids” and “dogs” (especially German Shepherds!). He loved to have them running all around the place. He loved to see them play and laugh. His special treat was to give the kids gummy bears at each service. And if he ran out (to moms’ horror), he would give them strawberry Twizzlers – or – chocolate!
One of the things dearest to Dr. Ruckman’s heart was his burden and love for doing the Prison Ministry. He looked forward to each time he had an opportunity to go into the jails and minister to the men and women there, especially the yearly 2-week long summer “junkets.” That was his “Christmas.” Words cannot express the appreciation and gratitude for all the love, support, friendship and prayers of so many saints through all the years; some for many years and some just a few. Through many dangers, toils, and snares he has already come. After a fall in 2015 and many months of declining health, he is now at HOME with his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
God gave him a “Full Cup.” Arrangements under the direction of Eastern Gate Memorial Funeral Home, Pensacola, FL.

Transgender Bathroom Solution!

Posted: April 28, 2016 in Homosexuality

Dr. James A, PhD

My wife and I have decided to self-identify as ‘One Flesh’. After all, that is a sincerely held belief by most Christians (Matthew 19:5). If a transgender can self-identify as a monopersonal character with two genders, then why can’t two genders self-identify as one person?

Therefore when my wife and I enter any establishment where transgender bathrooms are in use, we are going in to the same bathroom together… as one flesh 🙂

Furthermore, we’ve had it with stores discriminating against our pets. Generally, pets are not allowed in stores unless a person is blind. Not only  is that discriminatory against those with good vision, but it vitiates the rights of our K-9 that self-identifies as a transgender human. So if our dog wants to use the bathroom, it would be a hate crime to prohibit our German Shepherd -who has self-identified as a transgender human- from entering the bathroom with my wife & I.

Of course, there may be some women who object to a man entering the restroom with his wife and dog, but who are you bigots to refer to me as a man instead of what I choose to self-identify as? It would be hateful to object to my presence as a man in a women’s or transgender bathroom when I have self-identified with my wife as one flesh. If she is my “other half”, then who dares to prohibit her from using the restroom without being whole? Isn’t that why we’re catering to other transgenders? so that they can “be whole”?  And why aren’t animal rights activists standing up for the rights of my dog?

If you think this is ridiculous, just wait.

Dr. James A, PhD, Paralegal

Tom Buck, Karen Swallow Prior (“KSP”), and many of their defenders believe it is “unchristian” to call a woman who gets an abortion a murderer. Common sense, and Scripture disagree. The position of KSP and Buck minimizes sin for what it really is and gives a sinner a false notion of her complete depravity. Buck claims that he believes abortion is murder. But where there’s a murder, there’s a murderer. Who is the murderer in the case of abortion? The doctor only? If what the doctor does is admittedly murder, then how can the co-conspirator not share the same degree of responsibility? If the co-conspirator is not a murderer, then neither is the doctor, and therefore abortion wouldn’t be murder at all. Furthermore, would any pro-life advocate say that a woman seeking an abortion is not in sin? If so, WHAT IS HER SIN?

All throughout the Bible, a conspirator of murder was just as guilty of murder as the murderer himself. When David had Uriah killed, he was guilty of murder (2 Sam 12:7-10). Stephen called Jewish conspirators murderers in Acts 7:52 even though it was technically Roman soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross, and pierced His side. This shows that conspiracy to commit murder is viewed the same as murder.

In Exodus 21:22, a simple quarrel between men that caused harm to a pregnant woman were punished. Deliberate plotting of the killing of the child would fall under the preceding verses on murder.

Here’s a simple ethical dilemma for Buck and KSP to ponder. Let’s say a woman, 2 months into the pregnancy is having complications, has to deliver early, but wants to terminate the pregnancy. The doctor says it would jeopardize her life, so he’ll wait until the baby is born. After delivery, the woman gives consent for the doctor to snap the babies neck. Is it murder? Under current law, yes. Both parties would be charged with murder. However, had that procedure been performed in the womb one month later, it would have been legal. It seems then that time and location determines this murder, which is absurd if you are a Bible believing Christian (not to mention it is absurd under natural law). What sense does it make that killing the baby outside of the womb makes the doctor a murderer, and the woman a co-conspirator to murder, yet if the same exact procedure was done in the womb at the same time, or even a month later, it would not be considered murder? From a biblical perspective, both would be murder.

If another person kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies, or he attacks her and kills the baby, he is charged with that baby’s murder. How can we say that if someone else kills the baby, he is a murderer, but if the woman causes the death, she isn’t?*

Buck, Prior, and their ilk are relying on the fallacies known as argumentum ad misericordiam and argumentum ad passiones. It’s erroneous emotive logic that pity should be shown on a woman because murder is such a strong term it might damage her “psyche”. However, God should be allowed to speak for Himself (and He already has on the matter), and as offensive as sinful terms might be, we are not doing the sinner any favors by minimizing her involvement in terms of what it really is. This might be good Rogerian strategy, but it is not Biblical. Calling the woman out for the very sin she has committed might even save both of their lives and lead to repentance. 1 John 1:8-10. To say that a woman who causes her child to be murdered is not a murderer herself makes God a liar.



*In tweets dated April 2, 2016, Tom Buck, in defending his views, stated that,

That’s the problem w/ throwing word “murderer” around w/o considering every issue. There can be degrees of guilt.”

Nope. But, as I said, our nation never has and never will prosecute the woman. State of mind would be hard to prove”

This is a gross misunderstanding of the mens rea, actus reus, and modus operandi standards for establishing the crime of murder. First of all, yes, there are degrees of guilt such as 1st degree MURDER, second degree MURDER, and in some states, third degree MURDER, but all three are still MURDER. Tom admits there are degrees of guilt, but guilt for what? However, Tom is shifting the argument from a Biblical argument his detractors are pointing out, to a legal one (even though the context was about the ‘what ifs’ of prosecutions under law, Tom frequently relies on legal arguments to rebut Biblical arguments). With this kind of bifurcation, no Christian could say that abortion is murder so long as the secular law says otherwise.

The only time other acts of killing are considered by degrees less than murder are if the intention is lessened, such as in cases of reckless homicide or manslaughter. This is not a very good standard for argument because many clear-cut cases of murder can be pleaded and reduced to a lesser charge. Sometimes the prosecutor may feel their case has a weak-spot, or they may offer leniency if it’s a first offense, or perhaps a lesser charge is offered in exchange for the accused’s testimony against someone else the prosecutor wants more. This doesn’t negate the initial crime, it simply means that other political, legal, and social factors played into the decision of charging them differently which has no bearing on the actual offense itself.

Secondly, “state of mind” would only affect the case if the defense is arguing insanity or duress which is hardly the case in abortions. The only elements necessary to prove murder in most states is whether or not the defendant knowingly and intentionally (and often with “malice aforethought”) took the life of another person. I don’t know a single abortion that wasn’t planned ahead of time, and the very term “abortion” itself means the intentional ending of the life of the unborn. The defense of insanity often relies on two factors: whether the defendant has the ability to assist in his or her defense, and the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime. Given the amount of paperwork that a mother must agree to and sign to consent to the abortion, such would establish a prima facie against her for murder. The state of mind would be implied (rather explicit actually) in the consent to end a child’s life, and in the premeditation of making the appointment to do so. The reasons for doing so are as irrelevant as a husband justifying the killing of his wife because she cheated on him. Mitigating circumstances may affect the sentence imposed, but are irrelevant to guilt or innocence where intentionality and scienter are clear.

It is also not true that women were never prosecuted for abortions (e.g., Indiana vs Patel, Georgia vs Jones). First of all, women are not prosecuted nearly as much as men are, for any crime, let alone abortion. Secondly, 38 states have feticide laws, and it was prosecuted quite liberally in the 1800s. It wasn’t until Susan B. Anthony in the late 1800s, and later Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger in the early 1900s pushed for anti-abortion laws that there was any pressure to rescind punishments against women for aborting their fetuses.