San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 3, 2015

Man's Law Vs God's Law...Which One Wins?

The furor over the protection for religious freedom law passed in Indiana recently continues unabated.  In reaction to all of the negative backlash the Indiana state legislature quickly passed a corrective bill affirming that all heterophobes will continue to receive most treasured and honored status from the government.  The idea that some homosexual somewhere might have had a second or two of negative self esteem was too much to take and the law had to be changed.  Arkansas had a similar bill in the wings and it was also amended to make sure that the militant homosexual lobby was satisfied prior to it being signed into law.  As I have written before, there is no debate in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika about the moral propriety, or lack thereof, of homosexual behavior.  The heterophobes have won.  That means Christians who hold to the historic orthodox doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexuality have lost.  That is not surprising.  All government laws that go beyond those necessary to protect life, freedom and property always create winners and losers.  In this case it is the Christians who have lost.  And yet nobody seems to care that the Christians have ended up holding the dirty end of the stick.  Heterophobes scream bloody murder whenever they perceive they have been treated unjustly yet millions of Christians are abused by the law and nary a word of complaint rises up.   I wonder why?
There is no question that "freedom" of religion (yes, homosexuality is a religion) only goes one way.  Homosexuals are free to discriminate against Christians according to the terms of their religion but not vice versa.  This truth was nicely described by this blog writer when he wrote:  
"Should a lesbian photographer be compelled to accept a job taking pictures at a celebration of Fred Phelps at the Westboro Baptist Church?  Or does this photographer have the right to either accept or decline this job based on her comfort level and freedom of choice?  Does she have a choice, or is she under compulsion to go and be uncomfortable, to do a job against her will?  Which option, choice or compulsion, would be considered 'freedom' as opposed to 'tyranny'?
How about:
  • a black photographer at a white supremacist ritual,
  • a Jewish photographer at a neo-nazi political rally,
  • a vegan at a slaughterhouse,
  • a Mennonite at a pornography convention,
  • a Muslim at a pig farm,
  • a Jehovah’s Witness at a flag-raising ceremony,
  • a Tibetan at a function honoring Chairman Mao?"
I think we all know the answer to his rhetorical questions.  The folks mentioned on the list of classes of citizens preferred by the government would never be required by law to do any of the things listed.  In the SDA it is only Christians who are compelled to behave against their consciences.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a man whom I respect, wrote this opinion about the Indiana law:  "Thus, it is clear that one may not violate any law, state or federal, and escape the consequences of that violation on the basis that one’s religious views compelled the disobedience. Were this not the case, then nothing would prevent animal sacrifice, the use of mind-altering drugs, and even racial or gender or national origin discrimination in public accommodations and housing — all allegedly based on one’s claimed religious views. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations based upon race, gender, religion, beliefs or national origin, and quite properly permits no religious-based defense."  (Judge Andrew Napolitano, found here.)
I am afraid I must differ with the good Judge on this issue.  He believes that federal law commanding non-discrimination, even when religious beliefs demand discrimination, is always superior and must be enforced.  We have to admit that we have a conflict.  Civil law and biblical law disagree on the matter of homosexuality.  It wasn't always that way but it is that way today.  Homosexuals have a privileged and protected status as citizens of the SDA despite the fact that biblical law demands they be executed by the state for their sin.  What is a Christian to do when the law of the land specifically requires him to disobey the law of God?  The Bible answers that question.  Here is a quote from the Bible about precisely this issue:  "But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard.'" (Acts 4: 19-20)
Peter and John had been ordered by the governing authorities to cease preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.  They informed the authorities that they would not obey that command because the commandment of God is superior to the commandment of men.  Christians believe that God's law trumps man's law every time.  Or at least some Christians do.  Modern evangelical Christians who love government and the all powerful warfare state while simultaneously hating the law of God revealed in the Bible (they are called Antinomians) align themselves with the law of man.  I am not concerned with Evangelicals.  They will have to answer for their own sins.  I am concerned with historic Christian orthodoxy which has always asserted that the law of God is superior to the law of man and whenever a conflict arises it is the law of God that is to be obeyed.  Sadly nobody believes that truth anymore.
R.J. Rushdoony wrote an entire treatise on biblical law.  He introduced his book with a series of assertions that very much speak to the issue we are facing today. Here is what he wrote, "Law is in every culture religious in origin....It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.  If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society....modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system...there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.  Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system."  (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law)
Rushdoony's insights are right on the mark.  The source of law in any country is always the god of that country.  The god of the SDA is civil government, especially the federal government.   The federal government has a zero tolerance policy for biblical law. Whenever biblical law and civil law clash it is a guaranteed outcome that biblical law will be pushed out.  The law of the SDA maintains its existence by being hostile to the law and God of the Bible.  This is the way it must be in a land of idolaters who bow down to the throne of the state, praised be its name forever.  So expect more conflicts between God's law and man's.  The homosexual issue is just the beginning.  The God-hating sinners who make up the vast majority of the citizens of this wretched land have many more laws they would like to enshrine that will directly violate God's moral principles.  There is a war taking place in this land.  It is between those who believe in God's law and those who worship government.  You can count on one hand the number of people who love God's law so it is not hard to figure out how the war is going to turn out.  Meanwhile those of us who obey God's law will continue to do so, despite the consequences that will fall down upon us from the intolerant and hateful civil government.

UPDATE:  April 4, 2015
I was reading the Denver Post this morning and was surprised to see a story about a Castle Rock man who claimed that a Denver bakery discriminated against him by refusing to write an inscription on a Bible shaped cake he had ordered that said homosexuality is immoral behavior.  The owner of the bakery agreed to make the cake but refused to write the inscription.  The man filed a claim with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies claiming he was discriminated against because he was a Christian.
At face value his claim is obviously true.  The cake declared homosexuality to be a sin and the bakery owner, who is operating a public business and subject to all the same non-discrimination rules and regulations that Christian businesses are subject to, refused to serve her customer because of her own religious beliefs that homosexuality is just peachy.  According to Colorado law that is religious discrimination and quite illegal.  Do you want to guess how the Regulatory Agency ruled?
"There is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff's claims."  Shocking!

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Janet Yellen's Keynesian Lunacy

Janet Yellen is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.  She is also an economic idiot.  By that I mean she is fully committed to the economically suicidal principles of Keynesianism.  If you do not know what Keynesianism is I believe it is fair to sum it up as the school of economic thought which presupposes that government can control the economy.  All government has to do is pull the right strings at the right times and our economy will constantly grow with a state of perpetual full employment.  The fact that Keynesians have never actually been successful does not deter them from continually trying.  Janet delivered a speech last week that put her economic ignorance and belief in the all-powerful government on full display.  You can find the full story here.   Here is a quote from an article on CNBC.com about the speech:
"In a speech on Friday, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen stayed her dovish course, maintaining that an increase in the federal funds rate 'may well be warranted later this year.' She also emphasized the Fed's data dependence, as well as her general tone of 'cautious optimism' in the economy.  Yet it was in her discussion of what she termed 'special risks and other considerations' where things got interesting. The first of her three special concerns around hiking rates run along the following lines:  'Some recent studies have raised the prospect that the economies of the United States and other countries will grow more slowly in the future as a result of both demographic factors and a slower pace of productivity gains from technological advances,' the Fed chief stated. 'At an extreme, such developments could even amount to a type of secular stagnation, in which monetary policy would need to keep real interest rates persistently quite low relative to historical norms to promote full employment and price stability, absent a highly expansive fiscal policy,' she added."  Let's consider her comments for a moment.
The big fear right now is that the Fed is going to raise interest rates and derail the economy, plunging us all into another recession and driving the stock market to record low levels.  Rising interest rates will not hurt stocks.  Go here for the argument that I made previously in this blog.  As the idiot that she is, Janet believes that raising interest rates will cause the stock market to plunge to new lows so she is very careful to speak in hushed, reverent tones when she talks about future rate hikes.  As most everyone knows the short term interest rate has been set to zero for many years now.  Keeping interest rates artificially low for so long has done more to hinder economic growth than allowing them to rise to a more natural level would ever do.  But Keynesians like Janet do not see that rather simple and obvious fact.  They live in a world in which government action determines all.
Of most interest to me today is what the above quote referred to as "special risks and other considerations."  In particular Janet believes that the rate of economic growth in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika will decline in the near future because of "demographic factors and a slower pace of productivity gains from technological advances."  I have just one question for our omniscient Fed Chairman....how could she possibly know these things?  In fact, I have a couple of other questions.  What are the "demographic factors" which are going to conspire to decrease the rate of growth in the SDA?  I am driven to the belief that she is referring to the fact that the population of workers in this socialist country is aging, with more retiring and less entering the workforce every day. Here is a graph of the workforce in the SDA since WWII.  The left side of the graph shows the percentage of people working as a percent of the total SDA population.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2013_all_period_M10_data
If GDP growth is determined by the total number of people working in the marketplace we should have seen much lower rates of growth during the 1950s and 1960s when the percentage of citizens working was considerably lower than today.  What do we find?  The average rate of GDP increase during those two decades was +6.25%.  The current rate of GDP growth is 2.4%.  If the economy was able to grow when a smaller percentage of a smaller group of people was able to generate healthy gains in excess of 6%/year, why should a somewhat lower percentage, when compared to the 1990s, of a larger population base doom us to a future of anemic growth?  Answer:  it shouldn't and it won't.
The omniscient Janet also informs us that she has seen the future and it is bleak.  According to her the rate of "technological advances," whatever they are, is going to decrease, thus bringing about a lower rate of worker productivity and a lower rate of economic growth.  How can Janet possibly know what new technological advances are just around the corner and how can she confidently predict that the golden age of technology is behind us?  I have no idea and neither does she.  She is just blowing hot air in order to make herself sound intelligent and, above all, to make herself sound like the key to all economic growth in the future.  Technology emerges from the free market spontaneously and it will continue to do so in the future.  All attempts to predict future technological advances and the impact they will have upon worker productivity are foolish and vain.  All we do know is that profit-seeking businessmen are constantly looking for better and more efficient ways to create capital.  Although the process of moving forward is filled with many failures, they always succeed.  I see no reason why that should change and neither should you.
Janet's prediction that the SDA could slip into a "secular stagnation" is fascinating.  In essence what she is admitting is that all of her monetary policy maneuvers, and those of her predecessor Gentle Ben, have been worthless.  Despite the fact that the Fed is "data driven" (which is more of an excuse for failure than a description of the actual process), Janet has been unable to create a more rapid rate of economic growth.  So what does she do?  She predicts that the future will be even more bleak and that we should be thankful to her for the rate of growth that we do have.  It is only because of her efforts that we have any economic growth at all.  What utter nonsense it all is.
Janet concludes her statement by saying that if her anticipated "secular stagnation" occurs she will leave interest rates at zero percent forever.  Zero interest rates is the only tool in her bag and she is going to use it with a vengeance.  It does not matter that it does real harm to the economy.  It does not matter that one of the primary reasons for the present lower rate of economic growth is her policy of zero interest rates.  All that matters is that she is in charge and she is going to do stuff to the economy for which we should all be thankful.
Note that Janet concludes her statement with an "out."  She says that she will keep rates low forever unless the federal government goes on a spending binge to beat all spending binges.  We are talking an FDR type of spending binge here.  That is what she means by "absent a expansive fiscal policy."  The twin pillars of the Keynesian religion are artificially low interest rates and high levels of government spending.  Janet cannot control the government spending part so she tinkers with her interest rates while trying to convince all of us that we should pay no attention to the crazy person behind the curtain.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Eight Felony Charges But Not Murder

Yesterday I wrote about how Dynel Lane lured a seven-months pregnant woman to her home and proceeded to rip open her belly and remove the baby from her womb.  The baby died immediately.  Lane was arrested shortly thereafter and yesterday I found out what the Boulder District Attorney is going to charge her with.  To nobody's surprise the DA did not charge Lane with murder, although she rather obviously murdered the poor woman's baby.  No, this is the Socialist Democracy of Amerika where human life is defined as beginning at the moment of birth.  Up until the moment of birth a woman and her government approved "doctor" can conspire together to kill a baby.  One second after the moment of birth the same action is called murder.  The Boulder DA said that he could not charge Lane with murder "without proof of a live birth" so he charged her with eight different felonies instead.
The first count filed against Lane is attempted first degree murder.  Of course this count is not in reference to the murder of the baby, it is in reference to the the allegation that Lane attempted to kill the mother while removing the baby.  That is a fascinating charge since there is no evidence that has been made public which would indicate that Lane wanted to kill the mother of the baby.  She just wanted the baby and the mother happened to be carrying it.  I can't see how this charge will ever stick. 
Lane is then charged with two counts of committing a "crime of violence," whatever that means.  It seems to me that every single crime that has ever been committed is a crime of violence.  After all, how does one person commit a crime against another person without doing something violent towards that person?  Is not the act of violence towards another person a part of the definition of what it means to commit a crime?  The DA admitted that those two counts were added to the indictment for the expressed purpose of attempting to increase the number of years Lane would be in prison if she is found guilty of at least one of the eight charges against her.  He called them "sentence enhancers."  Isn't it wonderful to live under a legal system that has to play games within itself in what always ends up being a vain attempt to bring justice?  I wonder what the constitutional basis is for adding trumped up charges to an indictment in order to enhance the prison sentence is found?  That sure sounds like a fair trial to me.
Lane is also charged with two counts of first degree assault.  Now I find that most interesting.  Since there are two charges of assault there must have been two victims of the assault.  Who would those two victims be?  They must be the woman and her baby.  If that is true then we have the bizarre situation in which the baby is considered to be a human being when it is assaulted by the knife that ripped it out of the womb but not considered to be a human being when it died after being ripped out of the womb.  But how can a baby that is still in the womb be deemed human?  According to the law of the SDA that is not possible.  If I was Lane's lawyer I would most certainly exploit that defense.  All Lane is really guilty of in this situation is performing an unwanted removal of excess tissue from the belly of the pregnant woman.  Yes it is a crime but it is certainly not an example of first degree assault when the assault was only committed against excess body tissue.
Next there are two charges of second degree assault.  Just like the two cases of assault in the first degree, these charges can not both stand if one of them is in reference to the baby since the baby was not a baby, it was just excess tissue.  I have never understood why DAs heap up multiple charges of various degrees in their indictments.  I guess this is probably another "sentence enhancer."  But why stop at second degree assault?  If Lane committed a first degree assault against the pregnant woman then she most certainly also performed a second degree, a third degree, a fourth degree and a fifth degree assault against the woman along the way to the commission of the first degree assault.  I do not know how many degrees of assault there are in the SDA legal code but if a first degree assault has been committed then it is necessarily the case that all other lower levels of assault were also committed along the way to the first degree assault.  She needs to be charged with all of them, no matter how much that clogs up the proceedings.
The last charge is the one that sticks in my craw the most.  The DA charged Lane with "first degree unlawful termination of pregnancy."  You read that right.  Let 's ignore the matter of degree in this charge since I can't distinguish between first and second degree unlawful termination of a pregnancy anyway.  How can a person possibly be charged with terminating a pregnancy unlawfully?  Answer:  when the termination is not performed by a licensed agent of the government acting in conspiracy with the mother.  When the termination of a pregnancy, also known as murdering a baby or performing a state-sanctioned abortion, takes place by means of the conspiracy of a mother and her government agent to kill the baby it is legal.  Isn't that wonderful? 
Since 1973 there have been over 54 million lawful terminations of pregnancy in the SDA.  The only difference between those 54 million lawful terminations of pregnancy and the termination of pregnancy that took place when Lane ripped open the belly of a pregnant woman was that she did not hold a license issued by the government giving her permission to do so. 
Next time you walk down the street take a moment to count the people you pass.  Every sixth person is really not there because he or she has been lawfully terminated by a mother and an agent of the state who conspired together murder him or her.  And you still have the audacity to ask God to bless Amerika? 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Ripping Open Pregnant Women

II Kings 15 records the story of Menahem, a King of Israel.  Not much is said of Menahem except that "he did evil in the sight of the Lord."  One of his evil deeds is described in the chapter just referenced.  It says, "Then Menahem struck Tiphsah and all who were in it and its borders from Tirzah, because they did not open to him, therefore he struck it; and he ripped up all its women who were with child." 
Hosea 13: 16 is a partial description of what God planned to do to Israel if they did not repent and obey Him.  It says, "Samaria will be held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God.  They will fall by the sword, their little ones will be dashed in pieces and their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Amos Chapter 1 contains a series of judgments against neighboring lands.  The judgment against Ammon contains the following promised threat, "For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their borders."
These three biblical passages illustrate a series of truths about the practice of ripping open pregnant women and killing their babies.  Sometimes God ordained the action as an example of a horrific sin that needed to be punished, as is the case with Menahem.  Other times God ordains the action as an example of His own punishment upon a stubborn and rebellious people, as was the case with Hosea.  And other times God declares that those who rip open pregnant women will be punished for their actions.  For my purposes today I want to focus upon the passage in Hosea where God clearly threatens His people with judgment in the form of the terrifying act of ripping open a pregnant woman and killing her baby.
The passage in Hosea clearly teaches that God will not be mocked.  It also clearly teaches that God will bring providential judgements upon those who mock Him and rebel against His revealed will in the Bible.  The residents of Samaria were punished with multiple acts of pregnant women being ripped open and their babies being dashed upon the rocks because they had "rebelled" against God.  If God is willing to judge His covenant people with such horrific acts is it too much of an intellectual stretch to believe that He would also be willing to judge the reprobate with the same act?  I don't think so and neither should you.
I know there are many heretics and soft-headed armchair theologians who deny that God would ever do anything of the sort that is described in the three passages I have quoted above.  They will deny the historicity of the passages or they will advance the heresy of Marcion and assert that the God of the Old Testament has either died or changed His mind about such things.  The God of the New Testament, or so I am told, abhors such actions and would never ordain them for any reason.  Others, who have created an all-loving god in their own image, will simply say that God only does good things to human beings and anyone who suggests otherwise is a monster to be avoided.  Still others, Evangelicals mostly, will say that God did not do any of those things and attribute the acts of ripping pregnant women open to Satan.  I am not going to address you air-heads today.  It is sufficient to say you are all nuts and very, very wrong.
Last week a Longmont woman who was seven months pregnant was lured to the home of a murderess who wanted her baby.  While in the home the murderess attacked the woman with a knife and ripped her open, taking her baby from her womb.  The baby died immediately.  As you might expect, that simple act of violence has caused an eruption of responses from various special interest groups and others seeking to exploit the situation to their advantage.  As you also might expect, any attempt to interpret the event from a biblical perspective has been met with an even greater amount of outrage.  It is one thing to rip open the belly of a pregnant woman, that is bad enough, but it is another thing entirely to talk about biblical law in the public square, that will simply not be tolerated!
Gordon Klingenschmitt is a Colorado State Representative.  He is also a Christian minister who has a radio program entitled "Pray in Jesus Name."  Shortly after the news came out about the attack upon the pregnant woman Gordon made a comment that has outraged the God-hating public.  He said, "This is the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb, and part of that curse for our rebellion against God as a nation is that our pregnant women are ripped open." 
Gordon was immediately denounced for his comments.  He was denounced by both Republicans and Democrats.  He was denounced by the media and he was denounced by radio talk show hosts.  In fact, I can't find a single person who has not denounced him for what he said.  Colorado House Republican leader Polly Lawrence said, "I just want to take this moment to make it very clear that these comments that were made do not reflect our caucus...and we soundly reject them."
So what do you think?  Is Gordon correct?  I hesitate to ever say that a particular event that takes place is the fulfillment of a particular biblical prophecy or passage.  In the absence of an authoritative interpreter like a prophet I believe it is impossible to definitively link events with passages.  On the other hand, it is possible to speak about events like pregnant women being ripped open in general.  What do I know in general?  I know that God has ordained everything that comes to pass.  That means that God ordained the horrific event that took place in Longmont last week.  I also know that God brings providential judgements upon sinful people and oftentimes he brings those same judgements even upon saints living among a land of sinful and rebellious people.  One of the providential judgements He brings is having pregnant women get their bellies ripped open and their children dashed against the rocks.  He has done it before and there is no reason why He would or could not do it today.
I also know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is the single most evil nation that has ever existed in the history of the world.  The SDA military has murdered over 27 million people around the world since 1900.  Only a tiny handful of those 27 million dead were killed on SDA soil while invading our country.  The SDA has the highest rate of incarceration of its citizens of any nation in the history of the world.  How can I explain the rate of incarceration except to admit that we are more evil than everyone else.  In addition, ccording to the Centers for Disease Control, there have been over 54 million abortions in the SDA since 1973.  How ironic it is that a center for the control of "disease" would be reporting abortion statistics.  The wanton slaughter of 54 million innocent citizens of the SDA far surpasses any genocide in the history of the world.  The Holocaust does not even come close to the carnage we have in the SDA.  Lenin's and Stalin's purges do not come close.  Chairman Mao's starvation of 30 million of his own people also falls short.  54 million citizens represents 17% of the total population of the SDA today.  What more evidence is necessary to prove that the SDA deserves the wrath of God?
So is Gordon right?  I suspect he is.  God is bringing, and will continue to bring, a multitude of savage punishments upon the reprobate citizens of this immoral land.  Sometimes, perhaps often actually, even His people are caught up in the judgment.  That is the price to be paid for living among a nation of people of unclean lips. 

Monday, March 30, 2015

Miley Cyrus and Hilary Clinton Agree,God Loves Homosexuals

I am sure you have heard about the decision which was made in Indiana last week.  Indiana lawmakers had the good sense and courage to approve a law that upholds the Bill of Rights and allows Christians to behave according to the dictates of their biblical opinions without running afoul of the law.   The new law is called the "Religous Freedom Restoration Act."  The mere fact that the law refers to religion as something that needs to be restored is telling, don't you think?  Under the terms of the new law a Christian business owner may "use (his) faith as a reason to refuse service to customers, including same-sex married couples."  The reaction of the God-hating world to the new law has been entirely predictable.  They are outraged. 
This article describes the reaction of Hillary Clinton and Miley Cyrus, among others to the announcement.  Hillary tweeted, "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love."  Miley was more direct.  She posted a comment to Instagram (I don't know what that is) that featured a pornographic picture of herself with the following, unedited, comment to the Indiana Governor, "You're an asshole @govpenceIN ✌️-1 cc: the only place that has more idiots that Instagram is in politics @braisoncwukong thank you for standing up for what is right! We need more strong heterosexual men fighting for equality in both men and women! Why are the macho afraid to love muchoooo?!?"  Are you as concerned for the welfare of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika as I am?  I am barely able to translate the insane ramblings from the air-headed Miley but I think she is upset at the decision of the Indiana legislature.  That means that both Miley and Hillary agree on the issue.  That is downright scary.  What do you think?  Is it time to start the rumor that Miley is going to be Hillary's running partner in 2016?  I think they would make a wonderful King and Queen.
Other moral pillars of society found among the ranks of Hollywood celebrities weighed in on the issue.  George Takai, the militant heterophobic of former Star Trek fame, wrote this, "Outraged over Indiana Freedom to Discriminate law, signed today. LGBTs aren't 2nd class citizens."  No George, LGBTS are not 2nd class citizens.  In the SDA they are granted most-privileged citizen status.  The only second class citizens that exist in this immoral land today are Christians.  Christians are not permitted to behave according to the dictates of their theological positions.  Christians are expected to suppress the expression of their beliefs about the moral law of God revealed in the Bible while, at the same time, LGBTs are permitted and encouraged to spew forth a never ending stream of hate-filled comments about Christians and the God they serve.  Christians can have the law of this disgusting land used against them to force them, against the moral dictates of their own consciences, to engage in behaviors that are morally repugnant and highly offensive to them but George does not give a rip about that.  Yes George, there are second class citizens in the SDA, but you and your ilk are not members of that class.
A very large crowd of God-hating reprobates gathered at their church building last weekend to protest the moral actions of the Indiana legislature and Governor.  In case you are not aware, the church building for all state-worshiping reprobates is the local statehouse.  Anytime an evil louse wants to shout forth in support for his cause he will gather with like minded idiots at the building where their deities gather to make law.  I can scarcely drive by the Colorado statehouse without seeing some worshipers gathered outside, holding signs and placards and shouting slogans in support of their gods.  It is always a disgusting sight but, unlike the LGBT crowd,  I don't call for the uniformed thugs to come and suppress it.  They are free to worship their idols in peace.
According to an AP article about the gathering in Indianapolis, "The crowd on Saturday, for which police did not have an exact estimate, chanted 'Pence must go!' several times and many people held signs like 'I am pretty sure God does not hate anyone' and 'No hate in our state.'"  I am not sure where the nitwit holding the sign speaking for God got his information but I do need to set him straight.  Here is what God has to say about the issue, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  In another place God says, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated."  It is hard for me to see how it can be that God does not hate anyone in light of what God has told us about the issue.  It seems pretty clear from the Bible that God hates a fair number of people and it is equally clear that His hate for them will issue forth in a rather serious future judgment if they do not repent of their evil deeds today.
Various business magnates have also come forth with their condemnations of the new law.  Good for them.  Everyone should be entitled to speak his mind and declare what he believes to be true.  Free and open speech gives God the opportunity to gather sufficient evidence to condemn millions to Hell.  I am in complete favor of it.  On the other hand, why CEOs who operate their businesses in other states should consider it to be any of their business what takes place in Indiana is not explained.  Why anyone not subject to the new law should be given an  audience to comment upon it is not described.  Why any of us should care about what anyone besides a citizen of Indiana thinks about the new law is not elucidated.  Frankly, I don't see why this is any of our business.
Apple CEO Tim Cook has weighed in on the issue.  He has released numerous statements condemning the new law in the most powerful terminology he can use.   He has promised to use the economic strength of the Apple Corporation to punish the citizens of Indiana for their sins.  Cook is one of the best examples of a hypocrite available on the topic of discrimination.  You would think that for all his talk about non-discrimination and inclusiveness that he would be sympathetic towards Christians.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Cook hates Christians with a passion and he uses his corporation to discriminate against them on a daily basis.  Don't believe me?  Check out this article for the proof.  Cook bans "aps" (I have no idea what those are) that have Christian themes and advocate historic Christian doctrines.  How does that not constitute the exact same sort of discrimination he so vehemently hates in the new Indiana law?  I guess logical consistency does not matter when one's god is being attacked.
I only have one thing left to say.......Clinton/Cyrus in 2016!