Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

ATHEIST EQUIVOCATION ON INFORMATION
James A, Ph.D

I will say more about the following in an upcoming article but I noticed something interesting about debating atheists on mutations one hand (as to whether mutations produce new information sufficient to prove particles to people), and information theory on the other (that information itself in DNA/RNA and protein sequences shows an intelligent programmer behind their coding systems).

When atheists/naturalists/materialist argue in favor of mutations, they attempt to show that mutations do add new information (whether they are arguing from insertions, or bacterial resistance, etc…). Of course, they are wrong about their assumptions and conclusions, but that’s not the point. They must concede to a common sense definition of information to even begin to argue that their view of mutations adds new information.

However, when arguing about information theory, their first line of attack is to challenge the definition of information! Now think about that:if the atheist isn’t settled on what exactly “information” even means, then why would they be comfortable in their conclusions that, for example, insertions show evidence of new information? Why is it that the atheist/naturalist/materialist needs a functional definition of information* (since they know they are at a loss to explain the origin of information in DNA) when they don’t need a definition for information when arguing for new information in mutations!

This is just one more example of how atheists/naturalists/materialists use dishonest tactics to defend their a priori bias against a Creator.

_______
*When it comes to a thorough definition of information, I have always relied on the 5 levels explicated by Werner Gitt (In the Beginning Was Information). The atheists will always erect their straw man arguments against Shannon’s Theory of information even though I’ve consistently made it clear that SHANNON isn’t my source.

Advertisements

Why I Voted For Trump-Part 1

Posted: April 8, 2018 in Uncategorized

Why I Voted For Trump
James A., Ph.D

I’ll make this simple enough a liberal can understand it. We’ll start with a story.

In Afghanistan, there was a SGT leading troops away from an ambush. Only two people knew the escape route, the SGT, and the female CORPORAL that tipped off the enemy to their location. If the unit wants to survive they need to make a choice as to which person is going to lead them to the safe passage.

However, there’s a snag. Ms CORPORAL tells the group that SGT can’t be trusted because he’s immoral and he cheated on his wife. So the soldiers make a decision. They don’t like what the SGT did, and are personally mortified by it, but in this situation, they can either do nothing, in which case they will still die, trust CORPORAL who they know sold them out, which means they will die, or follow the SGT.

Liberals would’ve rather that conservative Christians did nothing in 2016, which is still a choice. So they constantly point to Trump’s past immoral behavior (and blatantly obvious, patently false accusations) in an attempt to guilt Christians into not supporting religious freedom, second amendment defense, freedom of speech, economic stability (which has a direct impact on churches, pastors earn their salaries from their members- if the economy is bad, the pastors suffer, and liberals are well aware of this. Why do you think Obama sicked the IRS on churches?), and a secure border. In other words, liberals think you should give up your constitutional freedoms because the man currently enforcing them is immoral. Never mind the double standards among liberals who defended Bill Clinton which is sort of telling: liberals know intuitively that objective moral values and duties exist, they simply choose to hate God and live like moral relativists (although they live like objectivists when defending THEIR actions and opinions) while expecting the Christian to maintain their standards. Of course, a Christian should live according to God’s standards whether a relativist does or not, but do so according to what’s actually in the Scripture, not according to the straw men and misguided arguments used by liberals. It’s a standard leftist tactic to attempt to polarize Christians and make them back down from politics by using some reductio ad absurdum logic to reduce any flaw in a politician as a reason you as a Christian shouldn’t support them. This way, they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Granted, I’d prefer someone else (sorry Trumpers). Knowing someone believes in objective moral values that are derived from our Creator makes it a little easier to believe someone is being honest and sincere which is important to politics. But the anomaly here is that while I don’t believe Trump is a serious Christian, he’s at least a theist that is at least striving to protect God-given rights, and he’s surrounded by good influences like Mike Pence. The alternative was to follow a communist/socialist witch who put our national security at risk by giving Russia nuclear bomb material (which they sold to Iran), and whose policies have always been aimed at destroying America and facilitating a coup that leads to America joining a satanic globalist one world order and began criminalizing Christianity (which has been in the works for decades under both Democrats and establishment Republicans).

So no, I don’t support Trump the person, but I do support a free market, strong economy, border security, freedom of religion and speech, conservative justices and judges being appointed, restrictions on abortion, deregulation, etc..and I will vote exactly the same way in 2020 if my only options are SGT and CORPORAL again. And whether the liberals like it, accept it, or believe it, we care enough about them to do what’s best FOR THEM, not their best interests (we’ve seen what their interests are and it’s not pretty), even if they don’t get it, and even if they hate us for it.

 

__________________

For some more detailed explications of the above arguments, see my article on Why Liberal Media Censors Fundamentalists

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

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?”

    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!

Dr. James A., PhD

01f4d8a89c32954bcd3d637b2774e991_dominique_alexanderSince Donald Trump’s presidential victory on November 8, 2016, rioters have taken to the streets to protest a democratically elected president. Although the liberal media claims these are “peaceful” protests, there have been numerous death threats against Donald Trump, calls from celebrities for his assassination, signs demanding that Melania Trump be raped, and recently, an ambulance was delayed due to protesters blocking traffic resulting in the death of the father of a 4 year old girl.

The protests continued this week at First Baptist Church, home of Pastor Robert Jeffress, led by Next Generation Action activist, Dominique Alexander. Alexander has an extensive criminal record and organized the Dallas protest that led to the shooting deaths of 5 police officers. Dallas news also reports that Alexander had been implicated in causing several bodily injury to a 2 year old child.

In video footage obtained by FOX news, Alexander is heard telling supporters that First Baptist Church is the “Mother Mecca” of all racist churches. Did you catch that. The M-O-T-H-E-R  M-E-C-C-A of racist churches. For those uninformed about Islam, Mecca is considered the holiest site among Islamic adherents.

The irony of this is that Trump and his supporters have been repeatedly accused-ad nauseam-of being “Islamophobic”. Yet somehow, this usage of an Islamic “holy” site is acceptable rhetoric in attempting to vilify a Baptist church? Imagine how CNN, New York Times, Huff Post, and all the-to borrow from Michael Savage-Press Klux Klan media would have reacted if Donald Trump had stood in front of any church, and called it the “Mother Mecca” of churches. Obama, Hillary, the DNC, Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, CAIR, et al, would have all called for his resignation (and likely his head-literally).

Jeffress is an outspoken Trump supporter, and the narrative that liberal media has attempted to create (unsuccessfully) is that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist. And why is Trump racist? Because they say so (classic circular reasoning and political correctness vitriol abound among their greatest arguments). Never mind that Hillary Clinton used racial slurs (“N” word) around her chef, or the Clinton Foundation’s defrauding of millions of blacks in Haiti, or Bill Clinton, with Hillary’s acquiescence, snubbing his black son, Danney Williams, or that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Trump Riots are funded by George Soros, a known Nazi collaborator. But Robert Jeffress? Seriously? I have my disagreements with Jeffress on a few doctrinal issues, but Jeffress? a racist? Never mind that his staff is comprised of African-Americans (Jephte Fanor, Pastoral Care Associate) and Hispanics (Kevin Batista, Minister of Missions and Evangelism). This accusation is a gross defamation of a good man, and is irresponsible, reckless, callous, and hateful. But it’s what we’ve come to expect from chronic fabricators among the Left, desperate enough to create the most elaborate Stephen King style narratives necessary for their “cause”.

Furthermore, it is also obvious that Alexander is attempting to associate “hate” and “racism” against ALL churches to minimize the influence of churches throughout the country. A “guilt-by-association” tactic: if you attend a gospel preaching, Bible-believing church with a white pastor, you’re a racist. It’s worth noting that neither Alexander nor any of the Trump rioters are protesting in front of BLACK churches who voted for Trump.

It is beyond ironic that the Left has resorted to such insipid gutter-ball tactics. But the fact that the Alt-Leftists have consistently couched their ad hominem attacks in “Islamophobic” rhetoric, while at the same time freely using Islamic sites as analogies to smear churches is the height of hypocrisy…and quite racist.

Dr. James A., PhD, Paralegal

NOTE: THIS IS THE ROUGH DRAFT (Without conclusion or closing statements) OF MY PETITION TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: PLEASE SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS, COMMENTS AS I WILL BE EDITING AND SUBMITTING THIS BY NOVEMBER 14, 2016. (Spelling & Grammar check has not been done yet for the Grammar Nazi’s on the Left, whose comments will be ignored and labeled spam)

 

Democrats are petitioning the Electoral College Commission to disregard the Electoral Vote that made Donald Trump President-Elect. Their grounds are based on false charges against the lawfully elected president. Most of these false charges were discovered through Wikileaks revelations where Democrat strategists conspired to accuse Trump of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia (not to mention that they also conspired against Democrat Nominee, Bernie Sanders).

The United States of America is a REPUBLIC, and as such, the Electoral College has been defended by the Supreme Court of the United States (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 [1951])and is based on a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (US Const Amend XII).  Petitions that have been submitted by Hillary Clinton supporters are based solely on emotional reasons: i.e., they didn’t like the result, yet no distinct challenges have been raised against the constitutionality of the Electoral College process. Even if such challenges were raised, it would be fundamentally unfair to visit such issues AFTER a presidential election has already been decided. This is not the first election decided by Electoral College, a process known to Democrats prior to the election. Democrats can not simply offer a challenge now to the results of the election when they failed to raise the issue prior to the election.

The reasons that Trump should remain President-Elect are as follows:

1. The Electorate provides a fair balance against corruption. For example. During this campaign, President Obama encourage illegal aliens to vote to become citizens. ICE agents arrested numerous illegal aliens who rebutted their arrests by claiming that Obama promised they would become citizens if they voted. This caused an influx of votes likely not caught by thousands of illegal aliens who had no right to vote.

Furthermore, the majority of cities wherein Hillary Clinton has derived her popular vote are within large cities with millions of citizens, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Miami, Boston, Ann Arbor, etc…all of which traditionally vote Democrat (and DID vote Democrat in the current election). By analogy, if one city in California had 50 million Democrats, while the rest of the country had 49 million Republicans, this would have the effect of the entire country’s fate being dictated by a single geographical location. This is one of the reasons why the Electoral College was implemented in the first place. Moreover, it is well known that certain cities (like Chicago) have been gerrymandered to include a larger portion of known Democratic supporters.

2. When Hillary Clinton conceded the election, she in fact did NOT have the popular vote. The additional votes she gained came several hours after she conceded the election, and ALL of them were coming from “Blue” counties that were still at 76% -95% of a complete vote count.

3. Evidence of election fraud attempts were found all over the country, particularly in Philadelphia where voting machines were converting votes for Donald Trump/Mike Pence into votes for Hillary Clinton. Moreover, Hillary Clinton was known to have met in private with the Elections Director of the Broward County Polling Division in Broward County, Florida, just weeks before the election.

4. Project Veritas uncovered even more evidence of election fraud, capturing on video Democrats inciting riots at Trump rallies, staging false accusations, and bragging about “bussing” in repeat voters in multiple districts.

5. During the debates for presidency, Wikileaks uncovered numerous occasions where Democratic members leaked debate questions to debate moderators (i.e., Donna Brazile) giving Hillary Clinton an unfair advantage in debates that helped shape public opinion on who the better candidate was for the presidency.

Based on the foregoing factors, there is no way to determine honestly and accurately whether or not votes for Hillary were legally submitted and acquired.

 Hillary Clinton should have never been permitted to run for president.

6. Hillary Clinton was the first presidential candidate be under FBI investigation for corruption: TWICE. Hillary Clinton deleted several thousand emails AFTER receiving an order from Congress to produce emails containing classified information on a private server.

7. The Clinton Foundation is still under FBI investigation. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/fbi-still-investigating-clinton-foundation/

8. The Clinton Foundation has been determined through investigations to have defrauded the people of Haiti by promising funds to restore their country through charity (see Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer).

9. Recent evidence has also uncovered potential involvement by Democrats in a large pedophile ring. (See Pizza Gate, https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/first-blog-post/ )

10. Hillary Clinton has claimed be the champion of women’s rights, but there is documented evidence that she intimidated and threatened sex abuse victims of Bill Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/, and http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/9-times-hillary-clinton-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo ). Furthermore, there are victims that have claimed that Hillary herself had raped them (Cathy O’Brien, Personal Testimony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pzp6VR7zJ8)

11. Hillary Clinton assisted in the overthrow of a democratically elected president in Honduras which led to the assassination of an activist, Berta Caceres, who was outspoken against Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the coup. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled