Archive for July, 2017

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?”

    RESPONSE:
    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)
     ggg
    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

    RESPONSE:
    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)
    RESPONSE:
    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!

    RESPONSE:

    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.

    CONCLUSION

    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!

Advertisements

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.