No Compromise when you're Right!

No Compromise Media

No Compromise Media

by Tracy Hood
(copyright) 2011
No Compromise Media

by Tracy Hood
(copyright) 2011
No Compromise Media

 

And Yeshua said to him, that ‘You should love Master YHVH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might and with all your mind. This is the greatest Commandment. And the second is like it.  That you ‘should love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang Torah and the prophets.  Matthew 22:37-40

It’s not enough to open one’s Bible and start reading, we have to train our facilities to understand Scripture within a Context. A text without a context is a pretext, a justification or rationalization of why we believe something, and in the case of Bible living we are commanded by our Brother and Martyr, Peter,  not to personally interpret Scripture.

I want to take a few minutes and give you some meat to chew on with regards to a four chapter letter written to the Colossians by Rabbi Shau’l.  First some background on why I am writing concerning Colossians.

I received a call from an “evangelical Christian,” her words not mine, expressing her concern because of a recent letter I had written to leaders of mainline Christian organizations regarding halal foods and our Biblical mandate not to partake in such foods that have been offered to idols and false gods.   It was a warning letter warning them that an attack on Believers in the realm of food was coming, and to watch for it, and train your pastors what to look for so they could pass this onto their Congregants. As usual no pastor or leader got back to me letting me know that they had received it and heard the message.

After she had read the letter, she sarcastically said the letter “smelled of legalism” and was to Jewish in tone, and was probably why no leader of mainline Christian organizations didn’t and wouldn’t respond to my letter.

Read more…

Islam is Not the way – for it is a death cult.

 Follow the word of God, and you shall see Heaven..

NC Sez:  It is NOT the place of  Christians to “forgive” lawbreakers.  We have laws for a reason and for a Christian to claim that it is our place to forgive law breakers denies the reason for having LAW!  What place is it for ANY individual or Society to forgive on behalf of the real victim of any crime who was hurt by an illegal?    Only GOD and the victim have the Right to forgive! The American Church HAS lost its soul, its spirit and its sanity!  This is another example of collectivist idolatry where we make the State and Society, GOD,  dispensing “forgiveness” and absolution!

I challenge any Christian to show me in Scripture where Society or the State has any RIGHT to forgive on behalf of a victim hurt by a lawbreaker!  Show me and proof me wrong!  The only thing the state can and should do, is dispense JUSTICE!  Forgiveness can happen  only by an individual. Clemency, which should not be confused with forgiveness, and is a very different thing from forgiveness, is done only on a case by case basis by the governor of a state for the purpose of mitigating the punishment for a crime.

Question:  What does forgiveness have to do with Law and Justice?  Either a Law is righteous and just and should be obeyed and enforced,  or it’s not just,  and needs to be repealed with retroactive amnesty.

Forgiveness has NOTHING to do with determination of the “justness” of any Law.

The Church has lost its mind because it can no longer THINK!! And the lawbreakers are happy for it! Lawlessness prevails in America!

You may also enjoy these articles too:

La Raza rooted in Saul Alinsky & funded by Imperialist, George Soros

Rick Warren: Faux-Pastor gets Dhimmi Award

###

Why We Are Going to Hell – Part 3,995

Conservative Protestants Condone Law-Breaking

Has the Christian Church Gone Crazy???

by

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

No Compromise Media

Evangelical Christians this week offered the Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and members of the U.S. Senate Immigration Reform Committee their ringing endorsement of full amnesty for the 20 to 30 million illegal aliens within the country.

Open borders and high immigration, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) proclaimed, increases membership in evangelical churches and is good for the economy.

Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, said there was no dissent among the members of his organization in ratifying a pro-amnesty resolution.

He testified that the Gospel requires that Christians be willing to forgive illegal aliens for breaking existing immigration laws and statutes.

Rev. Anderson added:

“We believe that undocumented immigrants who have otherwise been law abiding members of our communities should be offered the opportunity to pay any taxes or penalties owed, and over time earn the right to become U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The process of redemption and restitution is core to Christian beliefs, as we were all once lost and redeemed through love of Jesus Christ.”

The NAE describes itself as “. . . a network of 40 denominations comprising more than 45,000 local churches located in every congressional district and every state.”

Most of the member denominations uphold a literal interpretation of scripture and intransigent support for traditional values. The list of includes:

• Anglican Mission in America
• Assemblies of God
• Brethren in Christ Church
• Christian Reformed Church in North America
• Church of God
• Church of the Nazarene
• Churches of Christ In Christian Union
• Conservative Lutheran Association
• Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches
• Evangelical Presbyterian Church
• Evangelical Free Church of America
• Fellowship of Evangelical Churches
• Free Methodist Church of North America
• General Association of General Baptist
• International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
• International Fellowship of Christian Assemblies
• International Pentecostal Church of Christ
• International Pentecostal Holiness Church
• Presbyterian Church in America
• Primitive Methodist Church USA
• Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
• The Brethren Church
• The Christian & Missionary Alliance
• The Evangelical Church
• The Salvation Army
• The Vineyard, USA
• Transformation Ministries
• United Brethren in Christ
• US Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches
• The Wesleyan Church Corporation

The position of the NAE remains incomprehensible to many conservative Christian conservatives, including Rev. Judith Schmitt of Puritan Congregation Church in Scranton, PA.

“It’s outrageous for any Christian or Christian organization to condone law-breaking,” Rev. Schmitt said. “Forgiveness is central to the Christian doctrine but approval and reward of wrong-doing is not.”

Others, including conservative writer Patrick J. Buchanan, wonder why the endorsement of plans to grant full amnesty fails to create national outrage. He points out that while 25 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, “8.5 million U.S. jobs are held by illegal aliens who broke into the country or overstayed their visas.”

Senator Schumer and other advocates for amnesty argue that illegals take jobs that Americans are unwilling to accept.

This argument has been laid to rest by a raid on six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants which rounded up 1,200 illegal aliens, 10 percent of the workforce. The raid failed to create any employment problems for Swift. In a matter of weeks, the plants were operating at full force – - manned by hundreds of native-born Americans who were delighted to take the jobs.

Says Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain, “Whenever there’s an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do these jobs Americans will supposedly not do.”

No Compromise Media agrees with our colleague, Paul Williams!

Islamic incantation is not “prayer”, it is heresy. REPENT!

ThoughtRogue:  Who IS Barack Hussein Obama II?

Big Brotha', This One's For You!

Once again, the genius of the Founding Fathers shines brightly as they required our President to be a Natural Born Citizen – something, to this day, the occupant of our White House refuses to comply with.  Is it any wonder at all that our country is falling apart all around us?

Here’s what we do know by Barack Hussein Obama II’s own recent behavior:

• He’s canceled our nation’s most modern jet fighter the F-22 and several other cutting-edge defense programs
• As the deranged ‘Dear Leader’ of N. Korea commemorated our 4th of July by launching several missiles, BHO II simultaneously announced the discontinuation of our missile defense development programs.
• He’s hobnobbed with every leftist dictator around the world, while he denounces our allies such as Israel
  
• He’s bowed before the Saudi King, and mouthed very ignorant and anti-American speeches in Berlin and Cairo.
• He actually declared recently that the U.S. is NOT a Christian-rooted country, and that we happily host one the largest Muslim populations on Earth (more lies, or a catastrophic ignorance?)
• In a recent speech at Georgetown Univ., his apparatchiks actually covered over several Christian symbols so that they would not be seen while broadcast on television
  
• And the list goes on, and on, and on…

Would all of this (and more to come) have happened had we followed the supreme law of the land, obeyed our U.S. Constitution, and made certain that this Marxist impostor had actually been a Natural Born Citizen?  Will the beacon of Lady Liberty actually survive this virulent, vicious Usurper?

Ontologist sez: This is why debating a postmodern leftist seems like you’re trying to nail jello to a wall.

by Fred Hutchison
Self-deceiving pride leads the sons of Adam into many foolish vanities and conceits. Some people concentrate on the petty vanities, and others indulge in grandiose delusions about themselves.

It has long been clear to me that grandiose delusions of pride are sometimes the motor force behind the personal ambitions of political careers. However, until I read Civilization and its Enemies by Lee Harris, I did not realize that inordinate pride can account for the contents of extreme political ideologies. Harris calls these “fantasy ideologies.”

The first part of this essay is about my futile efforts to debate with leftists and to refute the myths of their fantasy ideologies. Subsequently, I shall introduce Harris’ concept of the fantasy ideology, which will explain why these folks cannot coherently respond to debate arguments, and why they almost always attack the debater instead of challenging his arguments. Then I will offer the “green” movement as an example of a very popular fantasy ideology. Finally, we shall plunge into the dark waters of Muslim extremists who are following an irrational fantasy ideology. We shall end with reflections about mad men with missiles.

The destructive delusions of pride seem to be leading the world to destruction. But there is hope. As we shall see, popular fantasy ideologies often form like a bubble, and after a season, the bubble pops. In every life, the illusions of youth pop like a bubble during the middle of life or perhaps late in life. In like manner, every civilization goes through phases of the delusions of pride, which endure for an historical season, and then pop like a bubble. In this manner, God sweeps each historical age clean of its vanities and illusions to prepare for a new season under His dispensation.

But now there are bubbles that are not yet popped, and some of my misadventures involve the attempt to pop those bubbles. At carnivals, one can win prizes by puncturing balloons by throwing darts. It looks easy, but is surprisingly difficult. The same thing is true of the attempt to pop the bubbles of fantasy ideology.

Tilting with windmills

My various debates with leftists have often came down to a fight over a myth. When I recognize that a leftist believes a myth, I often take upon myself the task of proving to him that one of his cherished beliefs is a myth. In other words, I am a self-appointed bubble-popper.

My quest often has had all the futility of tilting with windmills. I confess that I have often tried to reason with fools, contrary to King Solomon’s advice in Proverbs. Am I unwise to do this? Should I leave the popping of bubbles to God? Perhaps. But if I had not tried to tilt with the windmills, I could not have written this essay.

Insults shouted from a high window

Some leftists call me demeaning names when I challenge their myths. The insulting names are carefully chosen to display their moral and intellectual superiority and my moral and intellectual inferiority. In their inflated pride, they see themselves as existing on a higher plane than I do. They are sincere in their contempt and malice.

The insults have a windy echo as though they have been shouted down from a great height. It is as though a man at a window at the top of a tall windmill is shouting execrations down upon me.

On windmills and straw men

Some leftists respond to my arguments with a “straw man” attack. They build a “straw man” that is purported to represent my views and then attack the straw man. Their attack on the straw man is like burning me in effigy or poking needles into a voodoo doll with my name on it. It is as though they are getting vicarious pleasure in my symbolic destruction. It is a voyeuristic approach to hatred.

In order to build a straw man, my opponent must ignore what I actually said and attribute to me fallacies and follies that he can take pleasure in knocking down.

Metaphorically speaking, when I am tilting with windmills, I can sometimes see the giant arms of the windmill smashing a straw man with my name pinned to it.

Then the man in the windmill will insist that he just demolished me and will point to the smashed straw man as evidence.

Responding to the straw man attack

Sometimes I respond to the straw man attack with words like “The views that you attribute to me are things I never said and never thought.” Sometimes, I say, “I wish I could get a response to something I actually said.”

It is amazingly difficult to get a postmodern leftist to respond to something you actually say to him. The postmodern left has lost the ability to communicate authentically with someone who is not in their clique.

The new tower of babel

When God confused the tongues at the Tower of Babel, construction stopped because the workmen could not understand each other. Is the postmodern left trying to build a new tower of babel? A tower is potentially much higher than a windmill. Such a tower might enable them be able to shout down imprecations upon us from a much greater height than they can do now.

The narcissistic obsessions of the postmodern left not only make conversation with conservatives impossible, but must eventually trip up their conversation with each other. When that happens, their Tower of Babel will collapse.

The century-long progressive era has reached its apogee in the Obama administration. The bubble of progressive fantasy ideology has been at maximum during Obama’s long honeymoon with the press. Is God preparing to pop the progressive bubble, sweep away the rubble of twentieth-century illusions and allow a new kind of culture to be born? Perhaps. I know that postmodernism is unsustainable, but I don’t know what kind of world will follow it.

Nancy’s meltdown

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s communication meltdown is instructive. She is second in power to the president and more liberal than the president. As she stood at the top of her high tower, she tried to shout down her contempt on her enemies. She got tangled in her own words and embarrassed herself at her own press conference. She almost fell from power, but did not fall because just enough of her powerful allies rallied around her to save her. But many in her own party distanced themselves from her.

The day of doom for Pelosi and her ilk will come when the kind of painful communications breakdown we saw on television occurs between Pelosi and her key allies. Such a breakdown must eventually occur because the power brokers of the postmodern left are mostly narcissists trapped in fantasy ideologies. The left-wing tower looks powerful, but it is fragile. One remembers the seemingly impregnable tower of the Soviet empire (1922–1991). Ronald Reagan blew on it, and it collapsed because it was all dry rot within.

The increasing inability of the left-wing media to communicate with the ordinary person is another sign of communication decay. The liberal big city newspapers are dying. The audience for the TV political talk shows that feature liberal opinion has shrunk drastically. Even the liberals don’t like to listen to the inchoate ravings of left-wing narcissists addicted to fantasy ideology.

Interestingly, the same incoherence can be observed in liberal theology. Books and Culture magazine, a project of Christianity Today, quickly moved from conservative theology and conservative politics to liberal theology and liberal politics. The editor, John Wilson, who presided over this great betrayal became rambling and incoherent in his essays as the shift was taking place.

The incoherence of the heretic reaches its thickest fog in New Age poetry and New Age mystical writing. This is no accident, because the New Age Movement is a swamp of many heresies.

Striking down Dirty Dick

Postmodern leftists cannot communicate authentically, but they fancy that they have powers of divination. They think they can divine men’s motives.

Some leftists I debate with insist that they understand my motives and dismiss my arguments, which they attribute to bad faith, malice, dishonesty, unworthy motives, vested interests, or ignorant prejudices. These divinations are similar to the building of straw men. The leftist who has no understanding of me creates an imaginary person and ascribes bad motives to that person. Then he can ignore my arguments and condemn the imaginary bad guy he has created.

When I was a small child, I created an imaginary bad guy. I dubbed a little plastic cowboy with the name “Dirty Dick.” I ascribed to Dirty Dick every quality of villainy that I supposed a cowboy bad guy ought to have. Then I dreamed up cowboy wars in which Dirty Dick would be struck down at the climax of the war. I struck down Dirty Dick with great drama and relish, and Dirty Dick would die screaming and writhing in a histrionic way. Sometimes I would act out his demise with melodramatic overacting that would make Jim Carey look inhibited by comparison.

When a lefty makes me the Dirty Dick of his melodramatic game, he has a lot of stock characters and stereotypes of right wing bad guys to draw from the fantasy world of the leftist imagination. It is much like Hollywood during the era of the studios, when central casting could choose from a number of character actors who specialize in villains.

One must keep one’s sense of humor during these games. It can be amusing to find out which Halloween costume for a right wing villain one is expected to wear. If one can keep firmly in mind that the postmodern leftist is acting out a fantasy, one can laugh instead of taking umbrage.

Presumptions about religion

I had a debate with an academic philosopher emeritus about evolution. He claimed to be an expert in logic. However, he never answered my logic or my facts. The only argument he made in favor of evolution was based upon his tally of how many biologists support evolution and how many were against it. This is called in debate circles “an appeal to authority.” An appeal to authority in debate is creditable only if it is not a substitute for making your own case, or a substitute for responding to your opponent’s arguments. However, Dr. “Expert in Logic” did not seem to know this.

This academic was obsessed with the idea that my opposition to evolution was based upon my religion. He did not know what my religious beliefs or doctrines were, and I had not mentioned religion in my arguments. In a formal debate, if I were to point out that his speculations about my religion were unsupported and irrelevant to the debate, the judge would charge points against the man’s case.

The evolutionists understand that evolution is vulnerable to criticism, but they also know that attacks against religion can divert the attention of the audience away from the issues and win cheap propaganda points. Dr. “Expert in Logic” insisted upon making these cheap propaganda points. I insisted that we talk about evolution using facts and logic. He insisted that we talk about religion. In spite of his claimed expertise in logic, he seemed to be allergic to the use of logic in an actual debate.

After a lifetime of teaching and writing about logic, his rational powers had been eroded away by trendy left-wing thought. Rationality cannot coexist in a mind filled with fantasy ideology. Postmodern liberalism founded upon narcissism cannot tolerate reason. The fantasies of narcissism are at war with reason, and at war with reason and reality.

Ad hominem attacks

In all of the cases cited above, my debate opponents refused to respond to my actual arguments. They made no effort explain to me why my ideas are wrong. They insisted on attacking me, instead of refuting my ideas. This is called in debate circles ad hominem, which means “against the man.” Attacking the man is not a legitimate substitute for responding to his arguments.

Why have postmodernist leftists limited themselves to ad hominem attacks on their opponents? Why do they refuse to logically refute the ideas of their opponents? In formal debate, a debater cannot score points with ad hominem attacks. To win, you must either demolish your opponent’s central arguments or put forward more persuasive arguments than your opponent did. Why do postmodern leftists stubbornly adhere to losing tactics? I did not understand this until I read Lee Harris’ Civilization and its Enemies.

Fantasy Ideologies

Lee Harris and a college friend of his demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but they did so for different reasons. Harris’s friend participated in some obnoxious and subversive activities that Harris considered counterproductive. More people would be turned against the anti-war movement than moved to favor of the movement by these tactics. Harris’ friend did not care. He said he was doing these things “for the good of my soul.” He did not care what the outward effects of his subversive activities were. He cared only for the effects they had upon him.

Lee’s friend cherished a fantasy narrative in which he was on the right side of history and stood tall with the heroes of the revolution. He did not care if the leftist rabble rousers were effective. All he cared about was having a beautiful memory of himself of fighting in the company of giants. He had what Harris calls a “fantasy ideology.” I have no doubt that he wore a Che Guevara T-shirt.

A fantasy ideology requires a narcissist with a vivid imagination. Like a Hollywood director, producer, and story board developer rolled into one, the narcissist formulates a grand scenario, which puts himself in the flood lights and reduces everyone else to supporting characters and enemies. Enemies are pawns in the shadows. They exist only for the sake of the script and wear whatever costume is assigned to them by the script.

A fantasy ideology can be passed down from leftist leaders and adopted by followers. However, one must come to the table as a narcissist or the fantasy ideology will not take. Fortunately for the leftist leaders, the postmodern culture of self-esteem, self-actualization, hyper-individualism, and relativism is multiplying the number of narcissists in our midst.

A pawn steps forward against the star

Imagine that the narcissist has developed his fantasy ideology and has reduced all his opponents to pawns wearing costumes. He is the star of the show, and the story requires him to kick around the pawns dressed up as villains.

Suppose one of these pawns ventures up to the glorious star of the show and tells him that the script does not make sense, or that it contradicts reality, or contains a myth. How shall the great one react?

He might think, “Who is this upstart pawn to challenge the sublime narrative of my greatness? Doesn’t that scoundrel know that his only reason for being is to support the story as I wrote it in the script? He is fighting against his assigned role in the master plan for the greater glory of me. I shall put that varlet in his place.”

He proceeds with an ad hominem attack upon his enemy. He never answers the challenge that his enemy made that the grand narrative is illogical or is based upon a myth or is in conflict with reality. He flies into a temper and throws the dishes at the upstart pawn who doesn’t know his place and dares to question the grand narrative.

There is a reason for this kind of behavior which transcends mere infantilism. If the postmodern leftist condescends to answer the logic of his opponent, it would dignify his challenge. Even if the challenger was unsuccessful in the ensuing debate, the fact that the debate was held and the star and his opponent met head to head on level ground would be an admission that the challenger is not a pawn wearing a costume. The leftist would have to admit that he is not an untouchable great one, and that the assumptions of his grand narrative are open to public examination and criticism. To condescend to having a real debate is to have one’s narcissistic bubble punctured.

This, my friends, is why leftists in positions of power are trying to silence the conservative voice. The very fact that we are speaking and some people are listening is intolerable to them.

The great unmasking

Lee Harris describes the pregnant moment when a conservative challenger meets a leftist with a fantasy ideology in a real debate. At some point in the proceedings, the mask of the conservative challenger will fall off, and an unmasked and unknown person will stand before the leftist. At this point, Lee tells us, the leftist will blink and say, “Who are you? Why are you here? What do you want? Why are you disrupting these proceedings?”

Read more…