The latest target/victim in this culture war is free speech. Public/social media shaming over one's speaking/writing is growing--even thoughts are under ATTACK. Not only are the conservatives being attacked and shamed for their views; some well-known liberals are now in the cross-hairs of their own camp. The hating and discrediting of America's Founding Fathers has been the center of controversy now for several months by the same troubled troublemakers on the "Left" fulfilling Communist Goal #29: "Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs; a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis. "Of course the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Communist Goal #30: "Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats (and slave owners) who had no concern for the common man." These two goals go together. If one dares to write or say anything remotely positive about the U.S. Constitution or the Founding Fathers, they will be met with great HOSTILITY. Watch the news for proof.

All this is not new. For years there have been those who view America as "evil." They have worked to remove the Founding Fathers from the high position in which they are placed, and either rewrite the U.S. Constitution or replace it with a Socialist/Marxist version. The idea of a "living and malleable" Constitution has been the prevailing view in leftist academic circles. Most all "progressive" politicians declare the Constitution to be a "living document," i.e. it can and must change with the times--and the TIME IS NOW!

One outspoken critic of the "progressives" asks: "Which rights protected by the Constitution are now outdated? Property? Freedom of Speech? Self-defense? Contracts? Copyrights? Representation? The right to vote politicians in or out of office? Association with whomever one pleases? Free will? The freedom to try, buy, sell, succeed or fail? Freedom of religion? Which of these is now out of date?" He asked one last question: "What about the constitutional structure of government which protects all of these rights from being usurped by a kingly ruler?" He is definitely making plain the stupidity and unreasonableness of all the Communist/Socialist based accusations which the "Left" throws at those who oppose them.

What the "Left" wants is CONTROL--TOTAL CONTROL. The very rights/ideas in the U.S. Constitution are the same rights these hypocrites enjoy and aggressively use to criticize and attack the Constitution and those who support it. So now we have a new army of self-appointed "Thought Police" (what about disband/defund the police--remember?) who attack any and all who refuse to bow to their hateful and skrewed views and goals. (The idea of "Thought Crime," a major theme of George Orwell's prophetic book '1984', has finally taken root in American soil.)

Going back in history we find that in 1913 a book was written by Charles A. Beard titled, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. "The theory he offered claimed that the War of Independence was pushed by the "cohesive elite" (the Founding Fathers) so they could RULE the new nation in order to feather their own selfish nests. In the 1950s enraged patriotic historians, keenly aware of Communist goals and intentions, pushed back. And by the 1960s Beard's progressive/left version of the framing of the Constitution was refuted by what can now be read in Peter Novick's book, "That Noble Dream" (1988, p. 336).

The hateful and antagonistic view which the "Left" holds about America's Founding Fathers is on display for all to see as numerous historical statues and paintings have been torn down, ripped up, defaced, or moved out of sight by the riotous mobs of the new "Left Police." They intend to replace these icons of American history with images of their favorite radical/racist revolutionaries and reformers. Never ever forget that a key tenet of Communism/Socialism is to DESTROY the memory of the constructive participants of the past in order to justify the imposition of an ELITE class of rulers who, according to them, are much wiser, kinder, and lovable. All the while those who refuse to agree with and accept this radical change will rot in jails, prisons, labor camps, mental wards, or be murdered! History does not lie. It may repulse and sicken us, but truth is truth. And because lost people are still lost people, history is bound to repeat itself. Show me a nation where Communism/Socialism has made the people wealthy, healthy, and happy. I'm waiting.

ILhan Omar, a Somalian who came to the U.S., got educated, became a Congresswoman, and got rich. (Shame on her for using capitalism!) Omar, along with three other democRATic females in Congress (the "Squad of Four" S-4), have told the news media (also of the same political/cultural ilk) that she/they want to defund the ENTIRE police force nationwide, including ICE/DEA, as well as rid the nation of prisons--a list of "witch-wishes." In short, she said on CNN, ".. the whole U.S. system needs tearing down!" No doubt the S-4 will end up running the nation IF emasculated "Sleepy Joe" Biden wins the 2020 presidential election. Biden started out as a moderate, but because of the S-4, he has now moved left. But he won't stay there long. They will force him to move to the FAR LEFT and join forces with Socialist Bernie Sanders and his "Bernie Bros" who are not of the democratic party but are pure Communist/Socialist in heart and mind.

The press asked Omar about her patriotism to America. You might want to look this up and see what she actually said. She was asked if she loved America. Well, actions speak louder than words: She fully supports Black Lives Matter (BLM) and all their riotings/protests. She is also hardened towards blacks killing blacks--even children. In my opinion (Am I allowed to have an opinion, considering we now have "Thought/Opinion Police" as part of the newly established Socialist Cancel Culture?) you do not TEAR DOWN something you claim to love. Period. Why did this Somalian come to the U.S.? Millions have come here, and millions more are waiting to get in. Why? Because of what America stands for and what America IS! Why didn't Omar go to China, or any other Socialist country? Because she knows that if she said the kinds of things she is saying here in China about their government that she would be in prison for life. This Congresswoman got rich and powerful off the country she hates.

The "Left" is very verbal about their hatred for capitalism and law and order. They want NO police; open borders; etc. etc. As far as BLM goes, it too is a Marxist movement. Do you really believe they will be tolerant and peaceful once the Democrats are in full power? The Democratic Party will more than likely make them their "Cultural Police Force"--thugs given power in the name of justice. And look who sits on their fund-raising board--convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg-White (1985).

As I have stated before, it is never mentioned how many millions of black babies have been ABORTED (MURDERED) at the hands of Whites. Not just Whites, but racists. Planned Parenthood was started by feminist Margaret Sanger. "Feminism" gave birth to a radical new type of "socially progressive" women-- Sanger being one of the most notable. In the beginning she was a public health nurse in NYC. Eventually she got involved in the "murder trade" aka abortion. In 1916 she opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S.....hence Planned Parenthood was born. Do Black baby lives matter? Do White, Red, Brown, Yellow babies matter?

MAGICAL MYSTERY (MISERY) TOUR

The British rock group, the Beatles, released an album called "Magical Mystery Tour" in the 1960s. They were Socialist/Communist minded. One of their songs was "Back to the USSR." Well, if the "Bidenites" gain control of America, they will take us all through the magical MISERY tour. See if it won't be a repeat of the old Communist USSR and Mao's Red China during their "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s. See if you like what you feel, see, and hear. We will have "Bernie/Biden Bros" (BBB) instead of Bolsheviks (Russia's revolutionary Communist party of the early 20th century led by V. Lenin). It is interesting to note that the Bolsheviks took Russia out of WWI in early 1917, giving up huge territories to the Germans in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Will the BBB give up huge parts of America to China or Russia when they are in power, making their "Cultural Utopia" one BIG, happy, holy, and healthy family?

And just for the record, the Ku Klux Klan, which first appeared in 1866 under Nathan B. Forrest, the Confederacy's most decorated cavalry General, was started by the Democratic Party. What? Unbeknownst to those who have not carefully studied the history of the Civil War, the KKK was actually a terrorist organization used against the Republican Party. So much for the claim that Republicans are inherently racist. I maintain that the Democratic Party has always USED the Blacks as political pawns to accomplish their machinations.

COMMUNISTS PUSH HOMOSEXUALITY

We can actually learn much by studying the list of 45 goals which the Communist party publicized and worked methodically and tirelessly to achieve. Goal # 25 states: "Break down cultural standards

of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, m magazines, motion pictures, radio, and

television." Goal #26 states: "Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as normal, natural, and healthy. Goal #27 states: "Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed (Biblical) religion with socialist religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a religious crutch." Goal #40 states: "Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce." The Communists knew they had to undermine and weaken the moral strength of America if they were to have a realistic chance of eventually gaining control.

HOLINESS CODE: UNIVERSAL

While many laws, rules, and regulations in the Old and New Testaments apply specifically to God's covenant people, God's moral code dealing with human sexuality applies universally to all people, in all places, at all times.

Do you remember President Obama's quote about Leviticus; ". .suggests that slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination."? Since the Bible calls homosexuality an "abomination" as well as eating shellfish, it follows that if God put a death sentence on the first, then He is forced to do the same for the latter. So goes the homosexual activists reasoning. Yet, as to be expected, the reasoning behind this conclusion is flawed. If we were to get into what is and is not "unclean" we find there are literally hundreds of scriptures where we find this word being used. Eating blood was greatly condemned, along with many other things including certain animals, fowls, creeping things, fish, etc. Leviticus does condemn eating shellfish as an abomination, yet critics are wrong in isolating this injunction from its Biblical context and assuming that the punishment connected with it is death. We can find an analogy in the word "crime." There are many different crimes which people can commit and they all have their respective punishments, yet very few of them carry the death penalty.

THE DEATH PENALTY?

This brings me to an important distinction which must be made. The first point we need to consider is that the Bible says there are sins unto death and sins not unto death (1 John 5:16-17). A certain action may be called an "abomination" yet not necessarily incur the death penalty. The distinction between unclean and clean foods symbolizes the difference between that which was/is holy and that which was/is unholy within the context of an ancient theocratic government. Remember, many of the Old Testament's laws and prohibitions were specifically given to God's covenant people, not the gentile pagans. Yet His MORAL laws were, and still are, universal.

NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN

[Note: For an in-depth scholarly look into the subject at hand, I suggest reading the work of Dr. Robert Gagnon dealing with the GLBTQ debate. I have found more than a dozen reputable Bible scholars (including Gagnon) who agree with and defend the view I am putting forth in this article relating to God's Word on this subject.]

Dr. Gagnon notes that the proscriptions of Leviticus are grounded in trans-cultural creation structures, and that the closest analogies appear in the decrees against incest, adultery, and bestiality. The true Christian faith rejects all forms of unlawful sexual behavior. Gagnon, known for his "sword that cuts" style, points out that neither the anus (the orifice used for expelling excrement) or the mouth (the orifice used for taking in food and drink) are likely candidates for what God intended to be a receptacle for the male penis [reference Gagnon's work, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" pg. 131].

Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria said that male with male sex, i.e. aggressive/passive partner, was a step towards feminization. If he could only see what sodomites do today! Both Philo and Josephus (the famous ancient historian) believed that practicing sodomites should be put to death. Today they would be accused of "hate crimes" and "canceled" or permanently silenced by the sodomite community.

The homosexual community has the twisted audacity to suggest that Jesus was "gay." What sick minds!! We know that Jesus did not address incest, homo/lesbian behavior, pedophilia, same-sex marriage, etc. As already mentioned, there was no need, for it was clearly understood by those with whom he dealt that these activities were forbidden. Yet He did clearly reaffirm ever jot and tittle of the enduring, universal, moral law. Of course the Apostle Paul, in Romans chapter 1, describes sins of sexual perversion and the penalties connected with them. Keep in mind that Paul was writing to those of the Roman and Greek cultures where these kinds of sins were commonplace.

BACK TO THE BIBLE

If one digs into the writings of GLBTQ "Christians" one will come up with the most absurd and unbiblical arguments used to reinforce and justify their perverted lifestyles. Their assumptions alone lead to absurdity. They argue that even though the Scriptures do not say God created a third person (a transgender) that it was in His heart. Really? Where in the whole of Scripture does God ever honor or bless GLBTQ sins? On the contrary, you can find many passages where sins of this nature are strictly prohibited and incur severe punishments. Their reasoning is fallacious and absurd to say the least. They fail or refuse to read the Mosaic texts in light of their proper historical context, especially in relation to their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and consequently miss a fundamental principle of Scripture: that an important portion of Biblical laws are universal, enduring, moral principles which are still in force today, a view which a large number of honest, straight Bible scholars, teachers, preachers, and theologians vigorously defend. I have read dozens of pro-homo/lesbian books and writings, and without exception they all commit fatal factual errors, along with using flawed logic, in their hopelessly skewed arguments.

MARK 7:15-23

Here Jesus deals with what defiles us: "There is nothing that enters a man (or woman) from outside which can defile him (or them)" (v. 15). Jesus was alluding to the eating of certain foods that were forbidden in the Old Testament. His point was that Old Testament food restrictions were being lifted, for they were for the Israelites only and did not apply to the believing Gentiles which were soon to be included in the Kingdom of God. In the verses 21 and 22 we find another sin list, at the top of which are listed evil thoughts (porn?), adulteries, fornications, (sex sins) etc. The point Jesus was making was that it isn't natural food that will defile us, but the evil things which proceed out of one's heart, for the evil things which proceed from the heart can easily translate into sinful actions in the flesh.

I have read plenty of Bible commentaries on different subjects, including food. I warn my readers to be careful, for liberal scholars will not be honest in their "matter-of-fact" writings. There are words with several or many definitions/interpretations (Greek words referring to sexual behavior). This is why I reference and research a number of different Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, concordances, and lexicons, as well as different Bible translations.

A good example of one of these dishonest liberal scholars was John Boswell who died of AIDS in the late 1980s. Not only was he a liberal scholar, but he was a practicing homosexual as well. I read in entirety one of his publications defending his liberal views (close to 900 pages). He was also a historian and his notes were extensive. He could speak and write several languages. The main thing I picked up on was his tendency to choose the weakest or more obscure Greek or Hebrew definitions when defending his views on homosexuality. When dealing with definitions he would avoid those which were held by the majority of Biblical scholars and theologians, choosing instead to use ones he could more easily manipulate to support his pro-homo arguments. In doing this he led his readers to believe that these obscure views were the most Biblically correct.

It is important to realize that there can be many textual variants as a result of different English translations. To get an idea of the differences in relation to Mark's account, read the ESV, NIV, & NASB compared to the KJV or NKJV. To help you get an idea of how complicated these discussions can become, I have included a comment on Mark 7:19 from Hank Hanegraaff, a scholar who works with the Christian Research Institute:

"Does Mark 7:19 tell us foods eaten are purged or purified? Translations like the NASB, NIV, & ESV follow the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscript evidence which reads katharizōn, which is understood as an editorial comment from Mark that 'He (Jesus) declared all foods clean' - literally, 'purifying all foods' (correct). The KJV and NKJV, however, follow the few Greek manuscripts which read katharizon, which is understood as the Lord's conclusion to a rhetorical question, 'thus purging all foods?' (incorrect)." This may be all Greek to you, but looking up words to ascertain their proper meanings is essential.enc

Another good scholar/author to read is Bruce Metzger. Metzger says in relation to Mark 7:19 that the overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence supports the Greek katharizon. Metzger goes on to say, "The difficulty of construing this word in the sentence prompted copyists to attempt various corrections and ameliorations. The word katharizōn, therefore, is to be preferred as the way the original text read, and katharizon came as the result of a copyist wrongly presuming the former to be a mistake and attempting to fix the alleged problem." Honest Greek scholars and preachers like Metzger will watch closely how words are used in both content and context.

The homosexual movement claims that if Jesus declared foods to be "clean" which had previously been declared an "abornination" that it logically follows that GLBTQ sins are now also declared "clean." Let me point out that there is a big difference between eating and having sex! Foods considered "unclean" affected the body, while "unclean" and "unlawful" sex sins affect the body, soul, and spirit.

Freedom in Christ carries a price tag: responsibility. Even when Jesus changed certain things, He never changed any of God's moral laws. Paul also deals with the food issue in 1 Cor. 8:10-33: the Jews who remained under the Old Testament law still followed the Scriptures concerning what foods were clean and unclean. Paul, being a new Christian, was careful not to purposely offend the Jews who still thought it a sin to eat certain things which Christ had recently taught were now allowable. Of course the Lord may have changed some of the restrictions regarding food, yet He never changed a single moral, universal law. Neither did His disciples.

CONNECT THE DOTS

The food issue plays out in other ways in order to illustrate points. One was the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. We know Gentiles were considered "unclean dogs" by the Jews who were prohibited from associating with them. Only after Peter had his rooftop experience recorded in Acts 10:9-15 did things change for the new Christians. It was made clear to Peter that what God has cleansed, or declared clean, you must not call common, or unclean. God's time in history had come for Him to not only show partiality to the Jews, but now in every nation (the Gentiles) whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (through repentance). Paul also deals with the food issue in Romans 14:2 and Titus 1:15 basically reinforcing the new precedent given to Peter.

So what about sex sins? Lets say Jesus purged or purified unclean foods. The critical question is do we find a counterpart whereby He purified or purged sex sins? NOWHERE in the entire New Testament do we find anything even slightly resembling that idea. Nowhere!

While Paul rejoices that Jesus' reign extends to the faithful, repentant Gentiles throughout the earth who, on account of Jesus Christ, "....are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household." (Eph. 2:19), I ask the "Christian" GLBTQ proponents to show me Scripture that supports the idea that unrepentant, practicing sex offenders are welcome?

In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul further dispels the false notion that one can be a practicing sex- pervert and a believer at the same time. After he lays down a vice list in verses 9 and 10, he goes on in verse 11 to write: "And such were (past tense) some of you. But you were washed (by the blood of Christ), but you were sanctified (set apart), but you were justified (called clean) in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Please note those three underlined words. There is NO WAY that practicing GLBTQ people are saved (washed), sanctified, or justified in God's sight. A "saved" person becomes a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), old things (i.e. sex sins) are passed away. The very essence of salvation is that one turns from their sins, and both the Old and New Testaments make it clear that the activities of the GLBTQ lifestyle are considered sinful by God.

IS THE BIBLE TRUE?

First of all, I do not believe that the Bible, God's inspired Word, has one standard for sex offenders/perverts and another for those who choose not to participate in such activities. Yet that is exactly what the homosexual movement is trying to force us to believe. Distinguished Greek scholar F. F. Bruce says: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world that enjoys such a wealth of textual attestation as the New Testament." We have fragments of New Testament scripture dating back to within 50 years of the originals. And the first complete New Testament is dated not many years later. All reputable scholars agree that this is not enough time for any kind of textual corruption to find its way into Scripture. You can trust the Bible.

In this vast amount of verified New Testament era literature no where do we find sex sins condoned. So, why should we believe these so-called "Christian" sex perverts claiming to be scholars, preachers, priests, and teachers of today who espouse a view that is radically different from Scripture? Give me one reasonable reason why we should-just one! Desperate for support, the homosexual movement has gone so far as to create their own translation of Scripture which they call the "Queen" James Bible. As you could guess, in their version sex sins are whitewashed or explained away.

IN CLOSING

Obviously, homos/male and lesbians/female cannot naturally reproduce within their own communities. Hypothetically speaking, if we were all to turn "gay" the world would eventually come to an end. Is this kind of plan God's will? NO! So, what has GLBTQ ingenuity given us? What has queer sophistication contributed to the nation? If bisexuals reproduce, they also tend to produce perversions as well.

While I believe that GLBTQ people are invited by God to be saved, and can, with God's help, leave their perversions behind and become a new creature in Christ if they so choose, I completely reject the false notion that they are "created" that way, and hence have no need of salvation. Their motto is: "Just come to God as you are and stay gay." Really? Where do we find support for this in scripture?

COME OUT

The Apostle John heard from Heaven, "COME OUT....be not partakers of her sins ('her' meaning Babylon or organized religion, for God says Babylon is full of fornications, which include all sex sins). lest you receive of her plagues." --Revelation 18:4-5. In other words, "Come Out" of the satan-inspired world! Get away from twisted ideologies, self-destructive habits/sins/abominations! At the same time the homosexual movement has told its disciples to "Come Out" and show the world you are here and you are "Queer!"

Hell awaits all unrepentant sex offenders, whether they are in the GLBTQ camp or straight heterosexuals. At least consider what i have written here with an open mind. I truly wish for all to be saved. The door is open now, yet someday may very well be shut. Time is of the essence. PRAISE GOD! BY:GENERAL JAMES GREEN