DEMOCRATS FLEE FROM REASON ON “THE WALL”

So what’s this “wall” stalemate really all about? One word: politics.

Okay, so when did walls become immoral? Are doors likewise immoral? What about roofs? The answer is that, at least in America, they have never been and never will be “immoral”, except within the context of talking points drafted by a party dead set on delegitimizing a president they believe they would otherwise have a hard time beating at the polls. Which, of course, is a pretty embarrassing state of affairs when that President is Donald J. Trump.

I understand the political reality here, but what really annoys me are the idiotic talking points being sold to the American public by both parties. No, we don’t have zillions of criminals looking to infiltrate our southern border. Are there at least some trying to do so? This, of course, is quite likely, though not provable. If I left a thousand dollar bill on the counter at a store, I may not be able to state, with 100% certainty, that someone will steal the bill, but I can definitively say is that it is highly likely that someone will. Which of course is the entire point behind a physical barrier – a Wall. It’s why, even in the best of neighborhoods, we have doors to our homes and why we generally lock those doors, at least at night.

Everyone knows that Democrats previously legislatively supported the construction of border walls and/or barriers as part of our overall U.S. immigration strategy. They did so because they are simply a logical part of ANY plan to protect a country’s national safety and integrity. This has been true for thousands of years. So why are Democrats so unwilling to support the exact same legislation now? The answer is simple – This stalemate is all about preventing the President from fulfilling a key campaign promise in the hope that, as a result, enough of his people will not vote for him so as to give the Democrat party a chance to take the presidency in 2020. Nothing more and nothing less.

That said, is erecting a physical barrier (fence, wall, etc.) at our southern border a national crisis at this juncture? Yes.

We recently witnessed thousands of foreigners converge on soft spots around the U.S. southern border attempting to enter into the U.S. illegally. In at least one encounter, border agents who were being attacked were forced to disperse a crowd which included women and children with tear gas. Encounters like these occur because the perpetrators believe there is at least a chance of success. Most of these immigrants are banking on our catch and release posture, where they are detained given a court date and then released into the U.S. general population with a court date. Based on the most recent data, only about 6 out of every 10 immigrants actually show up to their court date. An immovable physical barrier serves to lessen both the violators confidence and resolve while preventing the need for active and hostile physical engagement with violators by border agents which serves to endanger the safety of both the perpetrators and the officers trying to stop them.

Are Asylum claims being made generally legitimate? No.

As is made clear by countless videos taken by news agencies interviewing the recent want-to-be immigrants at the southern border, the majority are attempting to enter the U.S. not because they are fleeing real or imminent persecution in their home countries, but because those countries do not offer the financial opportunities available to citizens and legal immigrants in the United States.

As an immigration attorney who helps the immigrant community, I know this to be the case first hand. That said, do at least some of them have “reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group”? Of course. But based on our past experience [cold, hard facts], the number of immigrants that ultimately are allowed into the country after filing an asylum claim is only about 20%. Basically, 8 out of 10 asylum applications simply fail.

Another critical legal factor is that there is a discretionary bar to granting asylum to any noncitizen who has already been offered the opportunity to live permanently in a third country before entering the U.S. Mexico has in fact done that. So as a matter of law, asylum can legitimately be denied to everyone seeking asylum in the U.S. who has tried to do so from the Mexican/U.S. border.

Wasn't Mexico supposed to "pay for the wall"? Yes.

To a large extent, they are. Trump's recent U.S. favorable trade arrangement with Mexico along with Mexico's offer of asylum to these noncitizens, indirectly will help to fund the wall by virtue of tariffs collected, a reduction in the trade deficit, and cost savings resulting from Mexico's asylum grants.

In sum,

Because there is really not only NO IMPETUS for Democrats to seek a middle ground with President Trump on the all-important “wall” issue, but rather an extremely STRONG INCENTIVE TO DENY THE PRESIDENT any semblance of victory in all areas including this one at all costs, the President really has no choice, in terms of what he has to do. It appears that President Trump will have to use his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers to go around Congress and build the wall as a matter of national security, while simultaneously ending the stalemate involving federal workers. He wins on both counts with this decision.

Bendiciones, 
Mario

ANDY STANLEY - A MARCIONIC HERETIC?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." - The Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 4:3-5)

I start by saying that I am pretty shocked right now. To be honest with you, I'm actually in pain right now.

Based on the alleged quotes from Andy Stanley's preaching series called "Aftermath" below, it would clearly appear that Andy Stanley, son of the respected teacher Charles Stanley and mentor to beloved teacher Craig Groeschel of Life Church, has now embraced and is promoting the latest form of heretical Marcionism - an ancient heresy recently revived and promoted by false teachers like Darrin Hufford, writer of The Misunderstood God.

Below I am quoting excerpts from a blog that I just read written by Steven Kozar. Steven's blog seems well written, well structured and thoroughly logical. Though I do not personally know Steven, his words below are sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant distribution. I will be hearing the series myself personally in order to test the veracity of the quotes offered by Steven below:

*** BEGINNING OF EXCEPTS
"In Andy Stanley's latest series, called "Aftermath," he suggests that Christians can unhinge their faith from the Bible while attaching their faith to the historically reliable resurrection of Christ (which is something we learn about from the Bible). Along with propagating doubt in God's Word, Andy Stanley is teaching a modern version of Marcionism, which is an ancient heresy that eliminates the Old Testament. Here are some recent articles that explain this in greater detail:

Here are some direct quotes from this truly bizarre and confusing "sermon" series:

“Jesus’s most devout first-century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible, they couldn’t have read the Bible if there was a Bible because most of them couldn’t read and there was no Bible to read. And yet, these men and woman turned the world upside down, they’re the reason we’re here today worshipping Jesus but they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. Why are you so quickly persuaded to walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t exist when Christianity began?”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“In order to remain irresistible, I noticed something we needed to address. And it had nothing to do with how we do church, it had everything to do with how we talk about the Bible, and specifically what we point to as the foundation of faith, which for most Christians, unfortunately, is the Bible. ”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“Many of you-I’m in this group-we were raised to believe that the foundation of our faith is the Bible; that as the Bible goes, so goes our faith, and if some of it’s not true then none of it can be trusted; it’s a house of cards.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

It only took about ten minutes into the first sermon for Stanley to dismantle the authority of the Bible and give high praise to the sincerity and intelligence of atheists like Sam Harris, but then he spends the rest of the "sermon" talking about the ministry of Jesus and the early church while quoting from the Bible. But the obvious question should be: why is he using the Bible at all?

Here are some more direct quotes:

“The first-century Christians had a very different kind of foundation for their faith than many of us have. Many of us were raised to believe that the foundation of our belief is the Bible, but they didn’t have a Bible, the Bible wouldn’t come until the early fourth century. What they based their faith on was an event-specifically the resurrection of Jesus, and this should be the reason we choose to follow as well.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“When Paul’s eyes were opened he had extraordinary clarity around the incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The Bible teaches that God mostly loves Jews AND the Bible teaches that God loves everybody; they are two incompatible covenants.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“I’m telling you, you take Old Testament values and imperatives and you mix them with New (Testament values and imperatives), you end up with a mess, and you end up with a message that unnecessarily drives people away from the Gospel. And once upon a time this wasn’t all that big of a deal, because once upon a time nobody knew that much about the Bible and they couldn’t find out much about the Bible unless they went to a library, but now everybody is one click away from whatever information they need to dismiss their faith, including your children and grandchildren.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“(On the public display of the Ten Commandments:) Jews aren’t for this, and it’s their law. You don’t see Jewish groups saying ‘We need the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn!’ Jewish people are like: ‘It’s over, it’s over...’ and the Christians are like: ‘No! It’s not over, we wanna keep it alive!’ And the Jewish people are like ‘I don’t think you’ve read it carefully.’ Cause they’re smarter than us about THEIR scripture.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The gig is up. The truth is out there. We can’t hide anymore. So let me be super honest: We can’t hide behind the Ten Commandments anymore because everybody has discovered that the Ten Commandments aren’t the only commandments; the Ten Commandments are the table of contents for the whole Jewish law.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“Originally in my notes I was gonna put a screen up here that said ‘In other words that means thou shalt not obey the ten commandments,’ but I knew someone would take a picture of that and it would define me for the rest of my life, so I’m not gonna put that up there...”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 3, April 28, 2018"

*** END OF STEVE'S BLOG EXCERPTS

I am in utter shock in reading this. Though I knew the church was in trouble, I had no idea that this spirit of Amalek/Jezebel had already done this much damage.

We must return to fasting and prayer guys. We are fighting huge principalities here.

THE RISE OF NARCISSISTIC CHRISTIANITY

People are increasingly becoming accustomed to a certain degree of narcissism in their walk with Christ. They reject anyone who brings up anything that they disagree with or otherwise stirs up their own perceived personal worldview which they have actually unwittingly adopted from the secular media and anti-Christian university professors both in Christian and secular universities.

Questioning what someone thinks these days is often viewed as an ad hominem attack on that person. To some, though to a much smaller degree, it’s actually considered a physical attack on their person justifying a physical response. New, cute little phrases like “micro-aggressions” are now routinely used to describe statements made that are at odds with what the hearer believes and thereby challenges what they (and the entire educated world from their perspective) justifiably defend and espouse.

Unfortunately, many who describe themselves as Christian have joined the pack.  Repudiation of spiritual authority and the rejection of any spiritual guidance into their lives by those whom God is expecting to give Him an account for them, as clearly stated by the writer of Hebrews when he says, “Obey them that are over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb. 13:17), has now become the new normal. Most now reject any spiritual guidance if it includes any manner of correction or rebuke. At best, proper spiritual mentoring may include suggestions in their secular mindset, but should never fully or completely embrace the advice the Apostle Paul gave his spiritual son Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:2, when he says,

2 Tim. 4:2 (NIV)

² Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

People are now often ONLY good with one of the three instructions given by Paul to Timothy here. Namely, that we as Christians (and not necessarily as leaders) should “encourage” one another. Many utterly question and reject any person’s authority to either correct or rebuke anyone else without their express consent. They embrace Paul’s advice to the Corinthians that everything they do should be “done in love” (1 Cor. 16:14), but then reject the statement just before it in verse 13 where Paul instructs the Corinthians that they should also “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, [and] act like men, be strong.”

The bottom line is that this new and insidious religious narcissism, affecting millennials in particular and the Church as a whole, now serves as the backdrop for knowingly rejecting Biblical authority as the only objective standard of faith. Don't be mistaken. This is all about ascension. This is nothing less than dethroning God and taking His place on the throne of our hearts while believing ourselves to be correct in our elevation of self over God.

That said, this is not a new problem.  The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards years ago addressed what he then described as “religious narcissism.” He believed it to be “the essence of hypocrisy.” It remains very much that to this day.

RESIST FASCISM? HOW RIDICULOUSLY LUDICROUS.

Dear alt-left people: For the record, ignorance is not fascism.
#RESISTTHERESISTANCE

There is a legal term for what these people are engaged in. It's legally called sedition. The sad thing is that Legion (the mainstream media) is promoting this narrative, likely for ratings.

How stupid does the alt-left think people are? This entire alleged "movement" undermines the principles of a free and open democracy on which our nation was founded. Somehow these people feel they have the moral right to undermine the political will of a majority of our states (30 states) because they disagree with the policies of the party the people of the United States legally voted into power. They are doing exactly what they claimed Trump supporters would do if they lost, a contention I wholeheartedly rejected from its inception. Liars believe everyone is a liar.
Here's the truth: They couldn't win at the polls for POTUS and have lost both houses of Congress with no hope to regain the majority in sight. Soon they will likely lose Control over the Supreme Court.

So now apparently they feel compelled to incite an insurrection in order to challenge a duly elected President. This movement is engineered to get people hurt. That is the only way they believe they can emotionally turn the hearts of the people of our country so that they gain some level of sympathy toward their socialist and fascist agenda.

Here's how Black's Law Dictionary breaks it down:
SEDITION, n. (14c) 1. An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority. 2. Advocacy aimed at inciting or producing — and likely to incite or produce — imminent lawless action. ● At common law, sedition included defaming a member of the royal family or the government. The difference between sedition and treason is that the former is committed by preliminary steps, while the latter entails some overt act for carrying out the plan.

SILENCE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION WILL PROVE DEADLY TO THE CHURCH

 By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

I write this, not as a pastor, but as an attorney, concerned citizen, and most importantly as a Christian.  While I understand that the church may not officially attempt to influence legislation without endangering its tax exempt status, the church may well be in a catch 22 situation here.

After the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the church and overall faith community had clearly been put on notice that they are facing a very real and present danger of losing public funding for any community based initiative that they might seek to undertake, as well as their tax exempt status, an act which will then both impose corporate taxation of any income received by the church beyond that required to cover expenses at the highest corporate tax rate in the world (on tithes and offerings), as well as the taxation of all presently tax-exempt real property owned by the church.

The end game, now being masterfully implemented by a Justice Department emboldened by the most liberal, anti-church president in U.S. history, is to criminalize orthodox Christian/Jewish/Muslim behavior by falsely alleging that such behavior, protected by the First Amendment, is violative of the federal Civil Rights Act and federal law, and and then shoving the SCOTUS holding in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) down the collective orthodox throats of the faith community.

Once this strategy is fully implemented, it will lead to the closing of countless churches and other houses of worship throughout the United States. Why? Because many small congregations of all orthodox faiths throughout the U.S. are presently barely able to meet their monthly mortgage payments or even to pay their ministers, let alone pay high corporate taxes on their income and property taxes on their real estate holdings. Many have survived by helping their communities through community initiatives subsidized by public grants. This will SHORTLY no longer be possible.

North Carolina’s legal action affords the faith community their collective “LAST LEGAL STAND.” The legal tide can be turned in this new case by use of the SCOTUS holding in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) which differentiates discriminatory "intent" from discriminatory "effect." The key is understanding the fact that though the so called “bathroom” law may be regarded by some, or perhaps by many, as arising from discriminatory intent, if it can be legally proven that it is in fact based on a concern over public safety and state economic concerns and not as a result of an intent to discriminate, both areas that fall under the protection and purview of state law, then the law would not be considered unconstitutional and would be upheld. 

Contrary to what is being promoted by the media and interest groups who could care less what the majority of parents in the United States desire for the protection of their children, parents, and houses of worship, the North Carolina law is admittedly based on the realistic understanding that it is a State’s right and responsibility to protect its citizenry from perceived dangers. In this case, protecting both children and the elderly from individuals who may gain access to public restrooms by falsely claiming to identify as women simply to use the access then granted to hurt innocents. In terms of “numbers,” simply citing the absence of documented cases to justify the public concern is inadequate, as only minimum scrutiny is required for laws imposed by the government in order to protect public safety and the economic well-being of the state. If only a few of the vulnerable parties may rationally be hurt by not imposing the new law, this is good enough legally. That is, the State must simply show that the law is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government end. If the local church remains silent at this juncture for the sake of political correctness, it will solely be responsible for is own very quiet economic demise. 

www.gonzlawgroup.com

#gonzlawgroup

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mario-Gonzalez/104864159567451#

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA’S PASSING - THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR CONSITUTION IS NOW OURS.

By Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. - www.gonzlawgroup.com

Today, America lost one of its greatest heroes. An Italian-American icon dedicated to defending the Constitution with every fiber of his being. A man who recognized the erosion of the family unit in America as the greatest threat to its stability, who understood the Constitution to be a document that, like any other document, should be read and analyzed as expressing the thoughts and values of the authors that wrote it at the time of its writing. A document much too precious to be twisted and contorted to support sentiments and ideologies anathema to the very patriots who poured their hearts, souls and minds into its drafting.

I can’t tell you how many times I thought of custom designing a T-Shirt with his name and likeness on it that I could wear around my law school just to freak my professors out. Every time Scalia was derided during a discussion at law school by the backhanded comment of some confused liberal, my heart was broken. I saw his critics as lost souls, adrift in a sea of legal and logical instability destined to be helplessly marooned on an island of conflict and confusion by their fundamentally flawed ideologies.

Even in his controversial decision on Employment Div. v. Smith, 484 U.S. 872 (1990) which ultimately prompted a religious backlash and evidenced the need for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), I understood and agreed with Justice Scalia’s much criticized opinion. Justice Scalia penned the Court’s decision in Smith holding that though the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe whatever they wish, it does not necessarily protect an individual’s right to act on that belief when doing so violates a neutral, generally applicable state law governing criminal behavior the state has a Constitutional right to regulate though its police power.  In Smith, it was Oregon’s right to regulate the use of an illegal drug (Peyote) for religious purposes. However controversial, his decision in this case demonstrated Scalia’s consistent commitment to protecting an individual State’s rule of law. His steadfast support for state sovereignty and his commitment to limit the scope of the federal government’s ability to interfere with this Constitutional right was invariable.

I secretly shuddered in fear when I envisioned what it would be like to have a Supreme Court without Justice Scalia. But in my heart I was comforted in knowing that Justice Scalia would continue to hang-on, if only to protect the Constitution until a President was elected that would properly select another constitutional originalist to fill his place. He hung on as long as he could, protecting the Constitution to his last breath. We now have the most liberal president in the history of our country poised to submit an appointee to the Supreme Court that will worsen the constitutional imbalance already present in this historically liberal Court.  If ever conservatives needed to erect an impregnable firewall to a potential presidential appointee to SCOTUS it is now.

What is at stake? Let me make it simple for you - the country.  Simply put, SCALIA’S REPLACEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. The next president’s influence over our country is constitutionally limited to no more than eight (8) years. Conversely, the decisions of a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice will affect us for generations to come. We cannot now allow what Scalia’s life stood for to be lost with his death. The fight to protect our beloved Constitution now passes to you and me.

WE SAW IT COMING FOLKS - CONSTITUTIONAL GENDER CONFUSION

By Rev. Mario Gonzalez, J.D.

Biological males now protected as having a “Constitutional Right” to bathe along with biological females in High School, so long as they “believe themselves” to be female, notwithstanding the presence of a distinctly male organ for all (biological females) to see or turn away from. This is the finding of Federal education authorities in Illinois against an Illinois school district seeking to honor the requests of parents who found the practice disgraceful. It’s only going to get worse unless the Church and other groups rally together and demand equal respect.

Here’s an excerpt from my lecture series on the outcome of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision which foretold of this move. It is part of my section on “The Trojan Horse.” –

“Here’s the problem - Allowing people who identify as gay or lesbian to marry is a question of what the State does. It governs the conduct of state or governmental officials. However, how you treat alleged discrimination against people who identify as gay – is another question altogether. This is a question that addresses the behavior of private actors - business owners, private employers, pastors, licensed teachers, public and private schools, licensed counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and so on. Now we have a Supreme Court precedent that can be used to force people to act against their religious beliefs by claiming that acting on their faith is a discriminatory act.

As expected, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DECISION, the EEOC in a 3-2 ruling (notice how close these rulings are – around 50% are AGAINST) held that discrimination against someone in employment for sexual preference is the same as sex discrimination (an established protected class) and is to be treated accordingly. This law basically proscribes disparate treatment of “similarly situated persons.” It essentially allows enforcement action by federal, state and local municipalities against private citizens, companies, or generally “actors” as an anti-discrimination effort.

By conflating the two issues (the right to marry and discrimination based on an individual’s personal sexual preference and/or preferred sexual identity) and by morally justifying homosexuality in its holding, Obergefell essentially established A NEW CIVIL RIGHT affecting an ever-expanding and as yet undefined group of people (LGBTQ… LMNOP). This decision not only forced states to ignore their democratically adopted domestic relations laws (family law) against the will of the people in those states, but it will now be used to demand equal protection for this as yet undefined group to engage in behavior considered by most as morally unacceptable for thousands of years, such as the unfettered use of restrooms or showers of one's choosing, irrespective of one's biological gender, based solely on a person’s claimed (and unchallenged) psycho-sexual proclivity or identity. This will be allowed and protected by law as a result of this holding irrespective of how morally repugnant the choice might be to others directly affected by it.

In summary, based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit, making moral what religion deems sinful, finding value in what nature manifests as wasteful, and praising a behavior that historically has served as a consistent marker for impending societal collapse.”Look up the article in the New York times by clicking here

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-district-violated-transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0