Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational and libertarian
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Mini Documentary Exposing Disney Inc Symbolism and Pedophilia
PS: I do not endorse all claims in this interesting mini documentary
Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove
Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove documented the first ever hidden camera incursion into the Grove and the bizarre pagan ritual, the Cremation of Care, practiced by its members: all men, including both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and Henry Kissinger to name but a few.
For most of the Club's long history, the public could only speculate as to what these men were doing. Now the truth can finally be revealed. Discover the horror of the secret rituals and strange perversions engaged in at Bohemian Grove. Is this where your future and the destiny of the entire planet is decided?
Original Release: 2000
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars: Iran and the Bankers’ Endgame By Ellen Brown
Food for thought and back stage possible dealings one should know about regardless of ones view on the use of American Military force with Iran.
Monday, April 13, 2026
Sunday, April 12, 2026
Saturday, April 11, 2026
Friday, April 10, 2026
Israel vs Hamas: A Message to the Fence-Sitters by Roger Mayhem
This is directed at those who claim to be critical thinkers, those who attempt to balance blame and moral equivalence within the Israeli-Hamas conflict. It is an unfortunate fact that civilian lives have been lost on both sides, but context is crucial. On one side, there's an explicit agenda to eliminate Jews, coupled with acts that defy description.
Despite these horrific actions, including the deliberate targeting of women and children for acts as gruesome as rape, murder, and kidnapping, there are individuals who audaciously equate a military response that targets terrorists, their weaponry, and ammunition with the same moral standing. It is imperative to acknowledge that these terrorists choose to use human lives as shields, and they bear responsibility for the civilian casualties.
Despite claims of neutrality, actions speak louder than words. Attendees of rallies chanting 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' should understand the implication of this slogan – a call for the removal of all Jews from the region. If one truly desires to stay impartial and prioritize civilian well-being, the absence of Israeli flags at these rallies and the presence of Hamas flags indicate a clear bias.
The difference between a side dedicated to eradicating Jews and a side dedicated to safeguarding them is glaring. Advocating for a ceasefire does not equate to seeking peace; it's merely a temporary pause that allows terrorists to regroup.
Remember, the world is watching this conflict closely. Throughout history, there have been moments where individuals had the chance to confront evil. This is one such opportunity.
GET OFF THE FENCE!
Libertarian Foreign Policy From NAP to Non-Retaliation by Roger Mayhem
https://rogermayhem.substack.com/p/libertarian-foreign-policy
The Libertarian Party has been a vocal critic of mainstream American foreign policy for years. Historically the party has championed the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). The NAP asserts that one should not initiate force against others and should only resort to force in self-defense.
Here is what the platform states about this.
“We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.”
However, a noticeable shift has occurred in the party's foreign policy discourse, raising questions about whether it represents a departure from its core principles. We will explore this shift and its implications, focusing on two critical foreign policy issues.
Recent developments, particularly the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, underscore the change in the Libertarian Party's stance. While Russia's aggression in Ukraine constitutes a clear case of initiating force, some within the party seem to have shifted towards a "non-retaliation" stance, portraying themselves as "antiwar." The question we explore here is whether this shift is consistent with the party's historical commitment to the NAP.
The party's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further emphasizes this transition. The NAP, with its emphasis on self-defense, stands in stark contrast to the party's response to Israel's use of retaliatory force in response to Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians. This deviation from the NAP is indicative of a broader shift in libertarian foreign policy discourse.
The Libertarian Party's foreign policy has changed from the NAP to a principle of non-retaliation. While advocating for an "antiwar" stance has merits, it is crucial to maintain moral clarity and distinguish between initiating force and the right to retaliation. The future of the Libertarian Party's stance on these issues will determine whether or not they will be taken serious on the issue of war and peace. So much for the “party of principles”.
Individual Liberty and the Responsibility to Protect: Toward a Neolibertarian Foreign Policy
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-70525-0_5
It has become conventional wisdom that libertarianism stands opposed to overseas military intervention in principle, in particular after the military (mis)adventures of the United States in recent decades. This conventional wisdom is challenged in this contribution, relying on the cosmopolitan nature of libertarian minarchist principles. Using the contemporary notion of the responsibility to protect, a responsibility to protect liberty that looks more favorably upon the use of military force to protect and advance the liberty and property rights of individuals across the globe is formulated.
Iran, the Nuremberg trials and ‘ex post facto’ law Apr. 4, 2026 Walter E. Block
https://www.jns.org/opinion/iran-the-nuremberg-trials-and-ex-post-facto-law
( Apr. 4, 2026 / JNS )
Ex-post facto law has a bad press.
What is it? It is the declaration of criminality after the fact.
Something is perfectly legal and time t1. Then, at time t2, it is declared illegal. But not only for the future, for the past as well. Right now, it is fully within the law to wear blue shoes. Then, this act is proscribed by new legislation. All those who have engaged in this now-illicit act in the past either pay a fine or go to jail. It’s difficult to think of anything more unjust or outrageous.
And yet, this was precisely the principle upon which the Nuremberg trials were predicated. During this court hearing, the Nazis claimed that what they did was fully congruent with German law at the time. If they did not murder Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, non-Aryans and blacks, then they themselves would have been considered criminals. They protested against the unfairness of having ex-post facto law imposed upon them.
The court overruled them—and very properly so. There are indeed exceptions to our otherwise justified opposition to ex post facto law. These judges found that some acts are so despicable, so nefarious, so intrinsically criminal, even though extant law allowed them—nay, even proscribed them. Still, it was entirely proper to declare them null and void, and to consider as criminals those who obeyed these illicit laws and acted on the basis of them. This court ruled that this certainly applied to the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, even though legal at the time.
This brings us to Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump ought to consider declaring that he will abide by these Nuremberg principles and impose ex-post facto law upon members of the murderous, dictatorial Iranian regime once they are defeated. If this does not make them sit up and take notice, nothing will. That is one possibility.
Here is another. He can issue a pardon to the leaders of this nefarious government on one condition: that they immediately surrender. There will, to be sure, be some injustice in such an announcement. They richly deserve the death penalty that was imposed upon the Nazis in 1945. However, such an announcement might well save the lives of U.S. military members, innocent Iranians and others scattered throughout the Middle East.
If they put down their arms within 24 hours—and cease and desist from creating mayhem not only in the surrounding countries and also within Iran itself—the death penalty will not be imposed upon them. They would, of course, be precluded from taking any office whatsoever in a new Iranian government, which would join civilized countries and desist from the atrocities of which his administration is guilty.
This would be clearly unjust. Those responsible for the past murderous acts of the Iranian dictatorship richly deserve the death penalty. But justice is not the only desiderata involved in the present imbroglio. The saving of innocent lives counts, too—and heavily so.
Perhaps a continuum could be established. Guilty Iranians who put down their weapons and engage in oppression no more will get only short jail sentences. Those who actively support American and Israeli forces, and turn against others who still act to defend this despicable regime, will be given a full pardon.
We leave the details to the Trump administration. We only insist that the Nuremberg trials may well serve as a good example at present.
Even if this possibility were merely bruited about, it might have some positive repercussions. It cannot be denied that the evil Iranian regime is now on its back foot. It is reeling from the massive bombardment to which it has been subjected. The ayatollahs desperately fear the uprising of the Persian citizenry, so much so that they have brutally murdered some 30,000 of their own citizens since the start of 2026.
The time is ripe for a successful internal rebellion, which would save U.S. and Israeli boots on the ground. If some of the armed guards ordered to shoot defenseless protesting citizens were, instead, to turn their guns around and shoot those giving these despicable orders, a Trumpian pardon might well be fully legitimate.
If consideration of the Nuremberg trials can play any even small role in this eventuality, it will have been well worth it to ponder this historical episode once again.
Thursday, April 9, 2026
Dispensationalism as an excuse for feigning neutrality
Too many people use dispensationalism and Premillenialism as excuses for not being salt and light in their community. No we are not to Christianize the world. However, we are to be salty and light of the truth to a dying and degenerated world.
Just because Christians could be Raptured at anytime is not an excuse to be not found working when Christ Raptures us. This does not mean I support the Christian Nationalists and domination theology. Quite the opposite!
We should give Scriptural input into the issue's of the day in our community. As well as in our Nation. We should not shy from giving the Biblical truth on subjects even controversial ones. We should let our light shine!
Wednesday, April 8, 2026
Monday, April 6, 2026
Sunday, April 5, 2026
What is Dispensationalism? A Concise Explanation by Peter Goeman
https://petergoeman.com/what-is-dispensationalism-a-concise-explanation/
There are many things people accuse dispensationalists of that are not inherent to the system of dispensationalism. In this brief article, I want to look at which beliefs define dispensationalism specifically. In other words, what must each and every dispensationalist believe in order to be a dispensationalist?
We can define dispensationalism broadly as a set of doctrinal beliefs that stem from a specific hermeneutical viewpoint. Dispensational ideas primarily concern hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. This means that within those three spheres, a dispensationalist must hold to a specific set of beliefs concerning how one understands Scripture, the role and function of the church, and the end times. Even within these areas, there is room for disagreement. In what follows are the four essential beliefs that each dispensationalist must hold to.
Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.
This is, in my opinion, the most important belief of a dispensationalist because it leads to the rest. The core teaching of dispensationalism is that the Old Testament must be interpreted according to its own context, and the New Testament cannot reinterpret or change the meaning of a passage. In other words, one does not need the New Testament in order to know the true meaning of an Old Testament passage. The New Testament is crucial to our understanding of the unfolding revelation of God, but a dispensationalist is adamant that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old.
Dispensationalism teaches that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church.
Stemming from the previous point, a dispensationalist believes that the Bible clearly demarcates Israel and the church as distinct entities. Dispensationalist teachers typically will clarify that this does not mean there is no relationship between Israel and the church. In fact, both can rightly be described as the “seed of Abraham.” However, similar to how complementarians say that men and women are equal in value, yet have different functional roles; so also a dispensationalist will say there is a functional difference in God’s plan between ethnic Israel and the church as described by Scripture.
Dispensationalism teaches that there is a future for ethnic Israel.
Again, this point is linked with the previous two. Because the Old Testament speaks of a future for ethnic Israel (cf. Lev 26:40–45; Deut 4:25–31; Hos 3:4–5; Zech 12–14, etc.), a dispensationalist reads the New Testament as an affirmation of those promises of restoration (cf. Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19–21; Rom 11:25–26, etc.). Most people have heard the hackneyed (yet important) dispensational phrase that goes something like this: we cannot assume the curses for disobedience applied to Israel, but the promised blessings for repentance and obedience do not.
Dispensationalism teaches that the promises made to ethnic Israel will have an actual, future fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom.
This point naturally flows from the previous points and becomes a good summary of what a dispensationalist believes. When a dispensationalist reads the Old and New Testaments, he sees that God made many promises to Israel. These promises include a return to the land (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 4:25–31, etc.), a promised ruler who will rule over Israel (Ezek 34:23–24), and prominence among the nations (Isa 2:2–4). These promises either will be fulfilled, or they won’t be. A key point in defining dispensationalism is that a dispensationalist looks for literal fulfillment of what was promised to Israel.
A dispensationalist also teaches a thousand-year millennium, because that is the time period within which God is to fulfill His promises to His chosen people, Israel. Mistakenly, dispensationalism is often accused of basing its doctrine of the millennium on one passage of Scripture (Rev 20). However, I’m not alone when I say that I’m a premillennialist before I get out of the Old Testament.
The prophets, in particular, convince me that there must be a future for Israel, and God’s promises to Israel must also be fulfilled. I am looking for the content of the millennium before I move on to the New Testament. It is the New Testament that confirms what the Old Testament already laid out. Furthermore, it is the New Testament that provides the time frame for understanding when the prophecies of the Old Testament will be fulfilled (Rev 20).
Concluding Thoughts
My list may be minimalist to some, but these are the key issues, as I see them, regarding what makes a dispensationalist. A dispensationalist can hold to a wide variety of beliefs that are not inherent to dispensationalism as a system, but I cannot see how one could be a dispensationalist and not hold to these key components.
Addendum: Other Lists of the Essentials of Dispensationalism
Here are some other lists of essential beliefs of the dispensationalist, provided by Vlach in his book on Dispensationalism (highly recommended):
Essentials of Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie (1965):
- A distinction between Israel and the church.
- Literal interpretation to all Scripture, including prophecy.
- The underlying purpose of God in the word is the glory of God.
Essentials of Dispensationalism by John Feinberg (1988):
- Belief that the Bible refers to multiple sense of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham.”
- An approach to hermeneutics that emphasizes that the Old Testament be taken on its own terms and not reinterpreted in light of the New Testament.
- Belief that Old Testament promises will be fulfilled with national Israel.
- Belief in a distinctive future for ethnic Israel.
- Belief that the church is a distinctive organism.
- A philosophy of history that emphasizes not just soteriological and spiritual issues, but social, economic, and political issues as well.
Common Features of Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock (1993):
- The authority of Scripture.
- Dispensations.
- Uniqueness of the church.
- Practical significance of the universal church.
- Significance of biblical prophecy.
- Futurist premillennialism.
- Imminent return of Christ.
- A national future for Israel.
Essentials of Dispensationalism by Mike Vlach (2017):
- The primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage. The New Testament does not reinterpret or transcend Old Testament passages in a way that overrides or cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers.
- Types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the church.
- Israel and the church are distinct; thus, the church cannot be identified as the new and/or true Israel.
- Spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles is compatible with a future functional role for Israel as a nation.
- The nation Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional role in a future earthly millennial kingdom.
- There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham,” thus the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)