Obama’s Desire To Idolize Fidel Shot Down

Obama Was Going To Castro’s Funeral–Until Trump Told Him This…

Reports from a White House aide confirm that Obama was planning on making the flight to Cuba to attend the state funeral for Fidel Castro, one of the worst monsters of the 20th century. After praising Castro and his regime in a statement denounced by harsh critics like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Obama submitted flight plans at Joint Base Andrews to take Air Force One to Guantanamo Bay.   facepalm

It seems nothing was going to stop the traitor-in-chief from finishing his legacy of hating America and embarrassing us on a global scale. Until he got a call from President-Elect Trump, that is. Dr. Ben Carson, one of Trump’s closest advisors, was in the room when the call was placed to Obama that halted the trip. Carson told The Associated Press:

Donald had really done his homework on this and found an old executive order written by Kennedy that forbids US officials from traveling to state funerals of dictators who denounce this great country. Castro held onto his hatred for America until the day he died and now he can rot in hell with it. Donald told Obama that if he went to the funeral he’d be in violation and would be locked up come January 21st. If he rescinded the order he’d be telling Americans he thought it was OK to send dignitaries to the funerals of terrorists.

Looks like Mr. Trump isn’t so “unqualified” after all, huh Barry? He just stopped you dead in your tracks from making a mockery of the American government…again. What were you planning on doing, anyway? Maybe you figured you’d show up and beg little Raul Castro for forgiveness for how horribly the US treated his murdering, power hungry monster of a brother for 50 years?

More proof that President Trump’s reign can’t come soon enough.





Islam was Banned from the USA in 1952 but You’re Not Supposed to Know It!

ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952 but Obama doesn’t want you to know that, nor does he respect or uphold US law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.

That Act, which became PUBLIC Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry in to the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional MEANS.”

This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States but this law is being ignored by the White House.

Islamic immigration to the United States would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam which is antithetical to the United States GOVERNMENT, the Constitution and to the Republic.

All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Now the politically correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the United States because Islam is a ‘religion.’

WHETHER it is a ‘religion’ is immaterial because the law states that aliens who are affiliated with any organization that advocates the overthrow of our GOVERNMENT are prohibited.




Public Law 414 – June 27, 1952


by Kevin Cannon, We the People Alabama, ©2015

The text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is on the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

(Dec. 8, 2015) — The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.

The law prohibits entry of “Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.” It also prohibits the entry of Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the US or of all forms of law, and Aliens who publish, circulate and distribute materials teaching or advocating the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the US Government or of all forms of law.

Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principle subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. It also prohibits those who distribute literature that advocates the overthrow of our country, which would include the Koran.

In fact, there are many verses in the Koran that command Islamists to kill those who do not submit to allah and the prophet. If Congress so desired to hold the White House accountable to the current immigration of refugees (which also must comply with the law), it has the Immigration and Nationality Act to cite. The Administration is breaking that law. The question is “Does Congress have the political will to do something about it?”

To read the law, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf. This link will take you the government printing office and the official law. I had to click on it twice to connect to it, it is real it is the law.

Time to drain the swamp!  



Roman Style America.

Roman Style America

by Karen Kramer

If only we’d learn our history, we might avoid repeating it—particularly Roman history.

Way back in the fourth century, B.C. leaders in the Roman government set price controls on wheat. When there were shortages, the government would buy up stockpiles and then sell it at a fixed price below market price.

Farmers were not able to do anything about the government control. Then the government took even more control and decided to give away grain to Roman citizens. With such a terrific deal for all the citizens, the farmers decided to just give up farming and head to the city for free food.

It didn’t take long for one-third of the Roman citizenry to be taking the hand-outs.rome

What to do with so much cost to the government? The Roman officials decided to just debase the currency. They soon learned that devaluing the currency came with a bite: inflation.

But whatever you do, don’t review the bad decisions, just compound them.

By A.D. 284 Roman Emperor Diocletian thought massive government spending projects were needed.

To undertake the massive increases in military spending along with huge building endeavors, and the bureaucracy to implement it all, he used forced labor and raised taxes to exorbitant levels.

Of course, projects of this size never come in under budget. Thus, it was necessary to debase the currency—again. Ironically, the government wouldn’t take its own debased currency for tax payments—the poor citizens had to pay with the real deal. And when they couldn’t, they became slaves to the state to pay the bills—on time.

Lesson learned? Not yet. By A.D. 301 the Edict of Diocletian became law. In short, the government controlled all the pricing, manufacturing, and sales.

Anyone caught producing or selling outside those controls were given a death sentence. History records how disastrous this was. Mobs and rioters were the norm.

flagFinally, the Roman Empire weakened and eventually became, well, history. Without a foundation of a free society with respect for individual rights and a free market, Rome was just another failed civilization.

But it does offer wisdom for those who turn to history for the lessons it can teach.

Why can’t people see where we are headed as a nation—same old same old. The ‘Lemmingnization’ of America. 

Do Ya smell that?


                                    Is it too late to learn something useful?


Have you had enough “Politically Correct” indoctrination.

Obama & The Human Stain: Or How Political Correctness Gave America a Con-Man President

By Kelly OConnell  kelly021311

The Human Stain, Philip Roth’s seminal novel regarding Political Correctness, racism, and the insipid hypocrisy of leftist morality, is a fitting backdrop to Barack Obama’s improbable presidency. In the story, Professor Coleman Silk, a half-Black Jewish professor, posing as a White man, is taken down by the mechanical application of PC rules to an accidental insult he gave to two African-Americans.

Now, we can introduce the 800-pound donkey in the room. Let’s ask a simple question: Could Barack have been elected president without the doctrine known as Political Correctness?

Or is simply to ask the question an unforgivable act of racism? In fact, the vast majority of Americans realize no person as inexperienced, untested, wildly liberal, or of such questionable past could ever have hoped to be elected without some kind of uncanny boost. But what is the result of this presidency based on nonsensical ideological doctrine? And what can be done to fight off the rise of the unscrupulous, unethical, incompetent and unqualified spore of the PC movement? This is the question addressed in this essay.

  1. The Human Stain

In brief, the novel The Human Stain depicts a professor who twists ethnicity to his advantage, then was ironically tagged a racist when he made an innocent remark deemed anti-Black. Here is one writer’s summary of The Human Stain:

Professor Coleman Silk is driven from his position as Dean of Faculty at a small, New England liberal-arts school called Athena College because of a remark willfully misconstrued as racist. Coleman, a professor of classics, wonders why he has never seen two of his students in class. “Do they exist or are they spooks?” he asks his class. The absentees are, of course, black, and a decorous mob of the politically correct immediately launches itself at Coleman’s throat, despite his honest protests that he had used the word only in its primary signification, as a synonym for “ghosts.”

Roth’s tome is well-worth a read. The underlying premise of the story is electric—the implicit hypocrisy of Political Correctness against the backdrop of sin, ie the human stain, making for powerful, topical drama. Barack is like Coleman because both hid their true ethnic roots to gain political advantage. For example, Barack is arguably only half Black. He masks his White roots to gain leverage on opponents.

We are left with the question in The Human Stain, of whether the ambitious and aged Silk could have risen while still sharing his true racial history with his colleagues. Even his own family is unaware of his true identity. Likewise, could Barack have ever been elected without a pro-minority bias, egged-on by a PC media; further—could he possibly retain over 40% support today despite a wholly flaccid and injurious reign? Common sense says, “No!”political-correctnospeak

  1. What is Political Correctness, From Where Did It Arise?
  2. Cultural Marxism

The idea behind Political Correctness was hatched by a group of progressive German academics, the Frankfurt School, before WWII when they relocated to America to escape Hitler’s wrath. They realized Marx was wrong—the poor were not ready to revolt and throw off Capitalism for a property-less society. These Marxists decided the only way to create the society Marx envisioned was by subverting its institutions by misinformation, propaganda and seduction of the mentally unformed. Writes one expert,

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious.

  1. Elements of Political Correctness

William Lind explains the Elements of Political Correctness:

  1. Both Marxism and Political Correctness are totalitarian ideologies, ie they allow no dissent and claim ultimate truth which people are then forced to follow.
  2. Political Correctness, aka Cultural Marxism, claims all history is determined by power. Nothing else matters.
  3. In Political Correctness certain groups are good—feminist women, (non-feminist women don’t exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are “victims,” defined as “good” despite how they act. White males are categorized as automatically evil.
  4. Political Correctness relies on expropriation, ie arm-twisting use of the government to recover what was “stolen” from them.

III. The Obama Presidency, Unfit at Any SpeedObama_NapoleonBellyHandCrM

  1. Our Stillborn Napoleon

Obama’s incompetence has become so well attested; it’s reached apocryphal status. No matter what kind of imbecility is attributed to Barack, the average American would tend to believe it. But how did this transition of perception occur? How did one so touted as a super-competent, “messianic” mega-genius fall so utterly, so quickly?

According to Occam’s Razor, the likeliest explanation is that, whatever his IQ, Barack is, on a practical, real-world level—a staggering cretin. For example, he’s never taken note of the fact that socialism and Marxism always fail, and kill millions of the innocent along the way. How was one elected with all the fanfare of a Heisman winner, yet be such a zero? This can really only be explained by pointing out that Obama’s instinct for incompetence was masked by his lack of real leadership experience, which would have exposed his tragic instincts.

  1. The Secular “Messiah”

How on earth did the Intelligentsia ever come to the conclusion Barack was anything more than a conceited, unenlightened, journeyman political hack? The fact Obama was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal/ Marxist made his elitist backers think of their own genius. Barack’s visceral socialism merely proved to the Ivy Leaguers and media drones he was a fetal Aristotle or freeze-dried Isaac Newton. Just add a presidency, and out would wriggle Obama Buddha from his Harvard Law Review chrysalis, ready to rule the world.

But, having been coddled and given every advantage by the establishment, Barack responded not by growing into each task, but by learning to be a con artist. That is, for every special position or opportunity Obama was handed, instead of seeing it as a challenge and chance to grow, he responded by raising his con-man act another notch. So by the time Barack reached the US presidency, 100 days after election to the US Senate, he was qualified for only a few things. These were: Speechifying, with a special emphasis on moral outrage; Marxist logic, in all its anti-intuitive convolution; and doing his con-man job of pretending to know everything as the African American Buddha.

Politically Correct special status belongs to such meritorious individuals as women, Blacks, or gays. Barack’s inclusion is described in a Los Angeles Times’ op-ed penned by a liberal writer trying to explain Obama’s come-from-nowhere appeal:

Obama is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination—the “Magic Negro.” The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture. “He has no past; he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist.”

He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

This op-ed also fostered an irreverent spoof by Rush Limbaugh.

  1. Obama & Herman Melville’s The Confidence Man
  2. Melville’s Confidence Man

Herman Melville, in his last major work: The Confidence ManHis Masquerade, well plumbs the psyche of the professional trickster. Melville tells a colorful tale of a con-artist traveling aboard a riverboat in the mid-19th century down the Mississippi. The protagonist first charms, then cheats his fellow passengers. The Confidence Man begs the question: In whom can we safely place our confidence?

The story may have been written after Melville read the New York Postaccount titled Arrest of the Confidence Man, of “William Thompson, whose brazen deceptions ushered the term “confidence man” into the American vocabulary.” The story ran in 1849, a few years before Herman’s publication date of 1856.

Melville’s story is more a study of how the con-man’s victims react, than the criminal himself. Each person is psychologically sized up, won over to the evil doer’s confidences, and then robbed. And much like with Obama, the scam could not be pulled off without well-meaning, but fatuously naive people ready to be conned.

  1. Sam Vaknin’s Diagnosis of Obama’s Malignant Narcissism

Dr. Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self LoveNarcissism Revisited. He famously diagnosed Barack as having a serious mental disorder, being a full-blown malignant narcissist. (A fascinating interview with Vaknin on Obama is found here: onetwothreefourfiveHis description of the Narcissist:

Feels grandiose and self-important; Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance; Firmly convinced that he or she is unique; Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation—or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious; Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his unreasonable expectations for special priority treatment; Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with the needs of others; Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by inferiors.

  1. Summary

So, Americans have the worst of all possible worlds. First, the poseur Barack was able to slip into the world’s highest office on the wings of a false, Marxist creed, Political Correctness. Second, Obama had spent his entire life learning how to pretend he is competent, effective, and even brilliant—while being continually advanced. But, instead of learning how to lead, he merely aped the outward traits of successful people. This left him particularly vulnerable to crises, since during normal times his leadership might go unnoticed, whereas during times of peril a leader’s quick decisions can make the difference between life and death. And so we observed Barack play golf while the Gulf Oil Spill hemorrhaged petrol for months.

Obama’s propensity to pretend he was qualified for various posts, despite any training, developed until he was a full-fledged con artist. This was perfectly symbolized by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize after 11 days of presidential eligibility, unaware this exposed him as a habitual fraud. But even his most recent actions, after two years of ineffectual service, were inane. He backed a radical Islamic sect, who favors Shari’ah Islamic law—the Muslim Brotherhood, after abandoning one of America’s most important allies in the Middle East, in the name of “democracy.” This reinforced perceptions of suspect analytic skills, a perpetual orientation towards radical Marxism, and default towards reactionary Islam.

Finally, Obama’s likely categorization as a Malignant Narcissist is unnerving because when conditions are most dire, we can expect the worst from Obama as a leader. We have already seen, even after getting repudiated in a gruesome election, Barack still demands hard leftist policies.

Well i have to say this is what we get for allowing voter apathy and the so-called “Lesser of two evils” mentality.

Donald Trump Versus the Counterfeit Morality of Political Correctness

Donald Trump Versus the Counterfeit Morality of Political Correctness

by J.R. Nyquist—————part one of two.trumpterror


Presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested that Muslim immigration into the United States should be temporarily suspended. In saying this, Trump did not break one of the Ten Commandments. He did not deprive anyone of their rights. He did not vilify anyone. He did not advocate genocide or racism. But here in America, in the West, we know perfectly well that he transgressed. In saying the same thing, we might expect to lose our jobs, our relationships, our standing in the community; for we have been indoctrinated to believe that everyone is equal, and all religions are equal. We have been told that the unfairness of the world cannot be allowed. This is our new morality — a counterfeit morality which has become more precious to us than our continued national existence. 

Trump is said to exemplify racism and sexism. When he says, in genuine consternation, that he is merely talking common sense, his elite listeners shake their heads. When Trump says that his own Muslim friends agree that he is right about temporarily suspending Muslim immigration, the elite refuse to believe him. He must be demented or insane. He is not to be taken seriously. It is some kind of “stunt.” Trump tries to explain that he is motivated by considerations of public safety and prudence. The elite sneer because they believe he is merely trying to win over bigots and yahoos. From this we may infer that our present media elite regards our Founding Fathers as malicious oppressors whose sexism and racism was every bit as heinous as the most rabid Nazi. Of course the Founders were patriarchs. They believed that women and children had to be protected. They believed that raising children and taking care of a family required fully engaged mothers. Any other course would have been a disaster (and now is a disaster) They also knew that alien religions and foreign tribes were not easy to assimilate — as the long and violent race war between red Indians and white settlers amply demonstrated.

To our politically correct politicians and pundits, our Founding Fathers were class oppressors whose policies included genocide and slavery. And it is, indeed, a funny thing to have benefited from these same forebears, decrying their prudence as racism and their foresight as sexism. It is no wonder our mainstream media do not appreciate Donald Trump.

It does not occur to our modern geniuses that restrictions on immigration might be prudent under the circumstances — and might save the country from future heartbreak. It also doesn’t occur to these same people that skepticism toward abortion and feminism might have nothing to do with animosity toward women, but might stem from concerns about the survival of a nation and its culture. Such concerns are not sexist, just as concerns about Muslim immigration are not racist. Every nation and every people should consider their posterity. And so this illustrates, in a particularly vivid manner, the war that is really going on in our time. It is a war against our ancestors and against our posterity which is waged by our present leaders.

Everyone, of course, has heard of the Constitution of the United States. It is the supreme law of the land. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the “Bill of Rights.” Americans today hear a great deal about “rights” and very little about the practical measures needed to ensure those rights. Many Americans have forgotten that you cannot have a constitution unless you have a country; and you cannot have a country unless you defend it against enemies, foreign and domestic. At bottom, every constitution must be construed so that national security is not compromised by a growing tangle of individual and minority rights that choke off those measures necessary for self-protection. So here we are, wrestling with the question: Do Muslims have a right of immigration into the United States? Does the Constitution’s right of religious freedom extend to foreigners who want to come here and whose religion has proven to be hostile?


Whatever we think of the Constitution, it cannot protect Muslims from the enmity which Islam generates wherever its standard has been raised. In fact, the Constitution was not written to protect the nation of Islam, or various colonies of that nation planted in our midst. The Constitution nowhere says that Muslims have the right to come to the United States, build mosques, or establish their own culture as part of a multicultural patchwork celebrated as a new kind of nation (self-negated). This is not why the Constitution was established. As stated in the Preamble, our Constitution was established “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….” It is worth repeating that last phrase — “to ourselves and our Posterity….” There is no reference to Muslims, explicit or implicit. They do not belong to our nation. They are not “ourselves and our Posterity.” Furthermore, we should pay careful attention to the objectives of the Constitution. How does the presence of millions of Muslims in the United States make a “more perfect Union” or “insure domestic Tranquility”? Clearly, the presence of an alien colony in our midst serves to promote disunion and unrest. How would the Arabs react if we insisted on a right of immigration to Arabia? How would they react if we began erecting Churches in Mecca?

hi-lighted because of anger toward a nation run by spineless wonders.

Wake up America! —————-i welcome responses.


This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love! In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic! Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims! Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”Self-absorbed-10-02-13-396x400

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience! An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad! It is supposed to make you feel guilty! The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization!

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up!

This is not a day care. This is a university!

That’s exactly right.

Either we challenge these entitled little barbarians, or will find ourselves and the mercy of an irresponsible mob of cry-bullies in elections to come. Only give them money to commission them for earning their own income. Cut them off from all tuition if they refuse to study STEM. Refuse to co-sign for their loans. Cut the apron strings at age 18. Never give them a dime of help unless their politics favor free enterprise and free markets.

Wow, someone with a backbone!


How apostates take over.

How the apostates take over

The evangelical church is under constant threat to compromise its reliance on biblical truth. The human desire to be accepted, to not be seen as “outside the mainstream,” can be overwhelming. But that desire is our weakness, our downfall. It does not always immediately destroy the dam we build to protect the waters of truth, but instead it leads to tiny fissures that grow until destruction is inevitable.
Twenty years ago, I experienced the painful demise of the Episcopal Church, which once was a bastion of biblical truth. It was not a pretty picture. It was a picture painted in the primary colors of relentlessness and deception.
The combination of those elements inevitably led some sincere folks to weariness, and willingness to compromise, and yes, ultimately to surrender. For those who sought peace at any price, conformity over conviction, and popularity over principle, capitulation seemed the easier way out.
The initial compromise, which caused the first cracks in the dike, seemed innocent enough at the time: the ordination of women.
But to truly understand how that initial compromise caused a wave of liberalism to overcome biblical boundaries within the Episcopal Church (and soon by the rest of the mainline denominations), we have to understand the different groups involved.
Sincere followers of Christ made up the first group. They believed in Jesus and the scriptures. To them, the effort to ordain women seemed genuine. But they ultimately bought into the secular argument that the ordination of women was merely an issue of equality, sharing power, responding to new realities, and gaining relevancy with modern culture. Those believers were most troublesome of all. Although they adhered to the secular perspective, no one could accuse them of having “departed the faith once delivered.”
The second group, which pushed the breached even further, was comprised of people who were religious but biblically illiterate. They followed a simple faith not rooted in history. They were more willing to follow than to think.
The third group was made up of committed liberals, or as I prefer to call them, apostates. That group often worked behind the scenes. They hid in the shadows, preferring to steer the second group forward while putting pressure on the first group. They fueled the secular media with proclamations that the church was “hopelessly out of touch with the real world” or that the “male-dominated church is unwilling to share power with women.”
The media — which loves to denigrate the church and its leadership for refusing to adhere to a godless culture — used its powerful megaphone to condemn the church. Of course, the media never understood that ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ is not about power. A pastor models himself after Jesus, who “did not come to be served, but to serve.”

When apostate Christians and agnostics were allowed to set the agenda and define the arguments, the faint of heart self-consciously sought to surrender. Quickly abandoned were Martin Luther’s words: “Here I stand. I can do no other.”
” I explained how apostates used the cause of equality to gain a destructive foothold within the church.
Some of my readers have missed the point of this two-part column altogether, thinking it is about women’s ordination. People will see what they want to see. The deeper point is that those who deny the core of the Gospel used an innocent issue, such the role of women in the church, to flood the church with non Bible-believing men, women, and homosexuals.
This is how it happened:
Initially, whole denominations acquiesced and allowed women to be ordained, but most churches still did not call women to be pastors. But with an influx of women into the system, something had to be done. So while the men worked by pastoring to parishes and parishioners, many women aimed at taking over denominational committees. Time and persistence had a way of succeeding.
By the early 90s, women made up only 20 percent of the clergy in some denominations, but they controlled every single committee.
With control of the ministerial candidate selection committees, for example, they focused on expanding the number of women clergy, not expanding the Kingdom of God. Time after time, I saw good young men turned down for ordination while spiritually unqualified women were given the green light.
I once asked why so many good men were being rejected. I was told that it was necessary to “make up for past injustices.”
But once the dam had been cracked, the people who flooded in were no longer those who argued for justice and equality. They were people whose hidden agenda was nothing short of apostasy and control.
From that point, committee leaders began to push for extreme feminism, abortion rights, homosexual advocacy, and other issues that were repugnant to biblical obedience.
All of that inevitably sapped the energy of the faithful. They no longer had the time or strength to preach the Word of God and witness to others. Although they still called themselves “the church,” they had strayed from the fold.
Today, the flood waters continue to rise and are even encroaching into some evangelical churches. But thank God for those who still stand strong, for they represent the last great hope for biblical submission. We need the evangelical church to refuse to put on the garment of compromise, to not bow to the gods of social acceptability and popular culture. We need it to never surrender to the secular armies and their weapons of manipulation and false accusation.
Back in 1980, I met with the retired Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, who had been bishop during those tumultuous times. It was soon before his death, and he told me, “If I had known all this would happen, I would not have been quick to give in.” He went to his grave in regret.
The apostates are like the ancient Greeks who destroyed the city of Troy by offering them an apparently innocent gift — the Trojan horse. The people of Troy willingly took the deceptive symbol of peace and moved it within their walls. Later, under cover of night, Greek soldiers crept out of the giant horse, opened the city gates, and ushered in the enemy army.
As with Troy, apostates today take over the church through means that seem innocent at first. For that reason, Bible-believing Christians must stand at the watchtower and be prepared to defend biblical truth, even when the threat seems harmless. If not, many more Christian leaders will go to their graves with deep, deep regret.

For the Record