Sermon … Luke 13 … Tower of Siloam

The point is simple – not every bad thing is indicative of sin. But everybody is guilty of it, so everybody needs to repent.


Forrest fires burning in the West. Hurricanes pummel Houston and are bearing down on Florida. Earthquakes in Mexico. Tyrants spill the blood of the judicially innocent. Now as then people begin to question the Divine in the affairs of men.  Where was God in it all? What were God’s purposes?

Those questions arise here in Luke 13.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (13:1–5)

Though we have no historical account regarding this particular blood shedding this kind of malevolence was not unusual in the ancient world. The Jewish Historian Josephus gives accounts of other similar incidents. For example, Josephus in his Antiquities tells us that at one Passover, “during the sacrifices,” 3000 Jews had been massacred “like victims,” and “the Temple courts filled with dead bodies” (Jos. Antt. xvii. 9, § 3); and at another Passover, no less than 20000 (id. xx5, § 3; see also B. J. 11. 5, v. 1). Early in his administration, Pilate had sent disguised soldiers with daggers among the crowd (id. Luke 18:3, § 1; B. J. 11. 9, § 4).

So, in light of this most recent outrage, Jesus is queried about God’s intent in all this.

As is His habit Jesus answered their question with His own question.

“Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered in this way?”

I.) Consider Two Assumptions in the Questions,

1.) The first assumption in the question is that personal disaster is in direct proportion to personal sin.

That Jesus couches His response in the way that he did demonstrates that assumed in the account He was given was that the suffering of people was in direct relation to their degree of being bad people. The more wicked they were the more suffering that came their way was the thinking. This idea is found throughout the Jewish mindset,

A.) John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from his birth.And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

B.)Job 4: “Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? Or where were the righteous cut off?

c.)Job 8:20 “Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man, neither will He help the evildoers,

D.) Job 11:and that He would show thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.

E.) After a list of accusations against Job in Job 22 Job’s accuser ends with,

10 Therefore snares are round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee,

Jesus’ answer here goes a long way towards suggesting that it is not always the case that the amount of personal disaster and suffering in one’s life does not always correlate to the amount of sinfulness in one’s life.

We simply cannot automatically conclude that those Christians we might call snakebit are being hounded by God. The book of Job alone proves this.


It also reveals that the questioners believed that tragedies were not something that happened outside the countenance of God. Many questioners today wouldn’t ask this question because they would just assume that God had nothing to do with falling towers or the ugly behavior of tyrants. No, the question reveals an understanding of God’s total sovereignty. These tragedies happened. God is sovereign. God is to be inquired as to why it happened.

Of course, suffering and death came into this world in the first place because of sin. So, Jesus’ questioners were correct in assuming that there is a connection between moral evil and physical suffering. But Jesus took that opportunity to remind them that we cannot leap to the conclusion that all people suffer in direct proportion to their degree of sin.

The Bible makes this point very clearly. It shows that the wicked sometimes prosper and the righteous sometimes suffer deeply. The book of Job especially belies the idea of a proportionate relationship between sin and suffering by showing that even though Job was the most upright man in the world, he was visited with untold misery, and then had to endure the questioning of his “friends,” who assumed he must have fallen into terrible sin.

Thus, when Jesus asked His disciples: “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?” the answer was obvious. No, they were not worse sinners than anyone else. Jesus wanted to get the idea of a proportionate connection between sin and suffering out of the disciples’ minds lest they think that they were better people in God’s sight because they had not suffered and died. So, He warned them: “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

To drive His point home, Jesus mentioned a similar incident: “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?” Again, the answer was clearly no. These victims were no worse and no better than any other Jews. So, once more He warned them: “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Those who were killed by the Roman troops and those who died when the tower fell may have been upstanding citizens. But in the vertical dimension, in their relationship to God, none of them was innocent, and the same is true for us. Jesus was saying, “Instead of asking Me why a good God allowed this catastrophe, you should be asking why your own blood wasn’t spilled.” Jesus was reminding His hearers that there is ultimately no such thing as an innocent person (except Him). Thus, we should not be amazed by the justice of God but by the grace of God. We should be asking why towers do not fall on us each and every day.

When anything painful, sorrowful, or grievous befalls us, it is never an act of injustice on God’s part, because God does not owe us freedom from tragedies. He does not owe us protection from falling towers. We are debtors to God and cannot repay. Our only hope to avoid perishing at the hands of God is repentance.

Jesus was not being insensitive or harsh with His disciples. He simply had to jolt them out of a false way of thinking. We would do well to receive His jolt with gladness, for it helps us see things from the eternal perspective. We can deal with catastrophes in this world only by understanding that behind them stands the eternal purpose of God and by realizing that He has delivered us from the ultimate catastrophe—the collapse of the tower of His final judgment on our heads.


And, as a general and national repentance did not take place, Christ’s threatening was most awfully verified. For there was a remarkable resemblance between the fate of these Galileans, and that of the main body of the Jewish nation; the flower of which was slain at Jerusalem by the Roman sword,


He cautioned his hearers not to blame great sufferers, as if they were therefore to be accounted great sinners.

Independence Day — 2017

I.) Statism – Humanism Always Begins With The Rejection of God

I Samuel 8:7

a.) First note here that while it is true that the one true God is rejected the rejection comes with the same time an embrace of a false God.

God is an inescapable concept. You have never met anyone who does not have a God. Here the people reject the one true God and pivot and embrace a Human King … a Statist-Humanist God over the God who is.

In this passage we see Israel exchanging the truth about God for a lie, and by choosing a King we see them worshiping and serving the created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.

And God’s response to Samuel is that He will turn Israel over to their desires.

This is often the way of sin. We think that we are abandoning God when in point of fact He is the one who is turning us over to our lusts which can never satisfy.

In choosing this Humanist-Statist God as God Israel at the same time chose another law-order, as Samuel will explain. Whenever a God is changed out … exchanged… there you find a new law and law-order also being changed out.

In point of fact, one of the easiest ways in identifying that there is a new God in town is to keep your finger on the pulse of the public law order.


Marriage, as by God’s law defined as one man and one woman covenanting with God and one another to be husband and wife. Marriage as by man’s law now defined as something other than one man and one woman covenanting with God and one another …

New law-order in the public square … new God in the public square.

And we should add here … as people conform to that new Law Order they are at one in the same time conforming to the new God in town.

b.) Second, note, that the sin in the request for a King was not in the idea of Kingship in itself. God had long spoke to Israel about having a King,

Gen. 49:10, Numbers 24:7, 17-19, Deut. 17:14-20

The sin here is not in the request for a King but their sin was in the desire to be like all the nations around them. It was not Kingship per se but their lack of contentment with God as King.

II.) The Problem With Statism-Humanism Is Not Chiefly With The State

I Sam. 8:11f

Here we see that the State will be onerous. We see that the State will be excessive in its demands. But the problem is not the State. The problem is with the people. The State is merely a reflection of a people who’s hearts have grown cold to God.

This is why change can never be had solely by a top-down revolution or rebellion.

As long as the grass roots remain unaffected
as long as Statism-humanism is the desire of the people
as long as there is larceny in the hearts of the people that desire to use the state to enrich themselves at the expense of their neighbor

Statism-Humanism will never end.

The problem in the growth of bureaucracy, in the growth of the mega-State is whether here or in any form of Government is that people have a lack of Christian character.

One simply cannot expect good governance, whether in State, Church, or family, if the populace is corrupt. Leadership is typcially the reflection of the people being led.

“You cannot make a good omelet with rotten eggs.” Bad eggs make bad omelets.

Here in I Samuel, the problem begins with a people who have rejected God. It is not amazing then that the State that they so earnestly desire will reject God as well.

In our own times the bad omelet surfaces in all our governances from the less important federal level to the more important local level. Whether in our Church or in our families,  our character is corrupt and so our governance is corrupt.

Exceptions exist …. and we praise God for those exceptions but I think we have to concede that our problem in the West today is a reflection of their problem long ago … they will not have God rule over them.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn worked this theme in his famous Templeton Address. Solzhenitsyn said then reminiscing on the failure of Russia governance,

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

Whether men in Ancient Israel, Whether men in Soviet Russia, Whether men in America. We have forgotten God and the consequence is Statism-humanism.

So, the order of fixing all this is Evangelism. Bureaucratic Statism-humanism will not go into eclipse until men are Redeemed. Men must be pointed to Christ as both their Savior Priest and their Savior King. They must be told of the God who reconciles alienated hearts, and who heals moral brokenness.  They must be told of the God who not only heals men but heals families, Churches, and Nations as well.

But the Evangelism we are talking about here is not the pietistic individual kind of Evangelism the West has been doing for a very long time now. No, the kind of Evangelism we need is an Evangelism which teaches right up front that if a “converted” man or woman is not interested in walking in terms of God’s law-word authority once converted they must be told, “Marvel not, when I say unto you, that you must be born again.” The West has had centuries now of antinomian Evangelism and the consequence is that we have from Statism-humanism to Statism-humanism with each generation more completely integrating into the void.

III.) Statism – Humanism is Driven by a Desire to find Identity in the Collective II Sam. 8:19-20

The demand was so that they might be like all the nations. They wanted a King like the pagan nations around them.

Keep in mind the staggering nature of this request. In the ancient world among the pagans, Kings were understood to have a Sacral / Sacred standing.  The King was seen as a conduit between the earthly realm and the heavenly realm. Often times the Kings among the pagans was seen as Himself an embodiment of God.

In this kind of Governance the King as God is a kind of projection of the people in their corporate expression. The King thus is the expression of the God of the nation said loudly.

The people desire a King because they want to locate their identity not in the God of the Bible but in the King who as an expression of the collective is the apex of themselves. They will be their own god and the King will be the apex of the expression of themselves.

God demands that we find our identity in Him and His Character and gracious His Law Word. Man chooses instead to find identity in himself. We see this in their belief that the King will better defend them than God’s providence. They are depending upon and so identifying with the King and not with God.

IV.) Statism-Humanism Brings With It The Growth of The State

In order to run any organization … even a family, one needs a certain amount of bureaucracy. However, with Statism-Humanism the state grows expotentially. The idea seems to be the greater or larger the State the greater its attempt to be God-like in its scope.

And what Samuel tells the people here is that the State will grow and by its growth they and their prosperity will diminish.

I will repeat that point again. Where the State has God-like aspirations the consequence will be the diminishing of the people so that what occurs is that the State which has as its purpose the serving of God through its service to the people ends up being a divine entity that exists so that the people can serve it with their wealth, and their children.

Like all Gods, the Humanist State begins to exist for itself. All that is done must be done for its glory. It legislates in protection of itself.  It begins to see the people as slaves for its purposes.  “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,” or, if you prefer, “In the State we live and move and have our being.”

We see the growth of the State as promised here by Samuel as against the request of the people and we almost have to laugh because if we could actually have only that much demand from the State we would find it a relief.

What was promised as oppression here in II Samuel has grown and grown as Statism-Humanism has found more exhaustive ways to oppress.

The fact that Statism-Humanism has only increased over the centuries is seen by a quote from J. R. Lander in his book The Limitations of English Monarchy in the Later Middle Ages has written,

“The civil bureaucratic establishment of late medieval England was very small, indeed. At the most not more than one civil servant for ever 1050 of the population. Moreover, their functions were by no means exactly comparable as about two fifths of these were employed in the law courts so that we can plausibly say that it was one for every 2070 of the population. To investigate the actual distribution of these civil servants, their total number nominally at the direct command of the king can hardly have exceeded 1500 men, perhaps 250 to 300 knights, esquires, yeomen and pages in the politically significant section of the royal household, perhaps 100 in the exchequer, 150 in the chancery, about the same in the law courts and about 30 or 40 receivers and auditors staffing the New Yorkest system of estate management and financial control centered in the king’s chamber. Eighty or 90 customs officials and about 700 or 800 local keepers of royal parks, castles and forests and stewards of royal manors. Each county its sheriff’s office and its staff in a large county like Lincolnshire could number up to 100. These appointments, however, were in the control of the sheriff, not the king.”


On this coming Independence Day, we celebrate that we overthrew a Statist oppression that in 1775 found New Englanders paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes.

On this coming Independence day, we are celebrating throwing off a Tyranny which erected a multitude of new offices, and who sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

In the doing of this we were a more Biblical people seeking to return to a more Biblical social order.

Often when these matters are laid out people will say … give us solutions. But there are times when solutions are not readily at hand. For example … when a Cancer patient shows up with stage 4 lung cancer one can understand his desire for solutions but his smoking for 35 years does not allow for one.

The only solution I know of … the only cure is non-antinomian Repentance.




The Logic Behind “The New Normal”


Modern man long ago claimed that “God is Dead.” In the killing of God, we are yet coming to terms with some of the consequences. Take the matter of evil for example. With the existence of a personal God who is the definer of all reality evil has an objective definition. This is to say that it’s definition is outside of us and is not subjective and person variable. Evil is real and identifiable by God’s standards. However, having rid ourselves of God, if we are to talk about ‘evil’ at all (and some people clearly do not want to talk about it at all) then we must conclude that ‘evil’ is defined subjectively by man. Evil then is reduced to that which man does not like and finds repulsive and inconvenient to him. Further, because there is no super-mundane God to define evil and because there is no objective character to ‘evil,’ evil is reduced to that which occurs by the random evolutionary process of time + chance + circumstance as defined by each individual who labels ‘evil’ as ‘evil.’ Finally, we would have to say that as ‘evil’ is defined subjectively there can be no universal agreement as to what constitutes ‘evil.’ As such one man’s ‘evil’ most certainly be another man’s ‘good.’

As ‘evil’ is defined as only having subjective existence and reality the cure for evil for modern man is not conquering or overcoming evil.  After all, one does not conquer or overcome something that has no reality. No, the cure for evil for the modern man is reconciling himself or adjusting himself to what it is he deems ‘evil.’ In short, if modern man wants to triumph over evil then he must redefine good down in order to accommodate for evil. Modern man’s problem is not his inability to conquer evil. Modern man’s problem is that he has not reconciled himself to his circumstances. He needs to find a new normal that will serve the purpose of redefining evil so that evil is not evil after all.

This kind of mindset is seen in spades in the current exigencies of our lives as modern Western men.  A couple of days ago in London, yet another Van purposely careened into yet another London crowd yet again leaving death under its axels. Among the leaders in the West, there is no call for ridding ourselves of the evil of the stone age culture that has been encouraged unto immavasion in the West. What we get instead either explicitly or implicitly is the idea that the inhabitants of the West must adjust to the Islamification of the West. It is suggested that this kind of routine mayhem is the new normal. The onus is upon us to understand our co-religionist newcomer neighbors.

Lying underneath all of this is the idol of false “knowledge.” Increasingly the idea is postulated that if we just understood Islam and just knew that Islam was a religion of peace and if we just got to “know” our Muslim neighbors that we could more easily reconcile and adjust ourselves to the new normal. This is the concrete example of what I spoke about earlier concerning how the West is being pushed to integrate good downward into the void of evil in order to arrive at new definitions of both evil and good. Knowledge, empathy, and sympathy will be our tools for integration downward into the void and as we integrated downward into the void we will discover that what we once thought was evil was not really evil after all but was instead our failure to adjust to, reconcile with, and embrace the new norms. Evil doesn’t exist. What exists is our inability to properly relate, adjust and reconcile.

If there is any evil in the former Western lands it is the evil of the Christian White man in refusing to give up his “Christian White privilege.” The problem you see is not the evil of Islam or the evil of the Marxist work of the transvaluation of all values, or the evil of critical race theory which has brought us to this pass. No, the evil lies in the inability and unwillingness of the White Western Christian man to join the anti-Christ revolution and so voluntarily disintegrate downward into the void. White Western Christian man is resisting adjusting, he is resisting reconciling himself to the new world order, he is resisting the need to relate to the new normal. The White Western Christian man who will not adjust is the worse sociopath of all. He is the anti-Revolutionary and he must be eliminated.

The idea of a Devil who is appointed to the end of evil has been eclipsed. The Devil and evil do not exist.  The Devil is a child’s truth. The Devil is what men thought of when they were still not enlightened.  When the Christian Western White man learns to embrace the new normal what is thought of as the Devil and as evil will disappear. So, one hears the call to “give in,” and to compromise. There is no willingness to fight because evil has no objective meaning. Fighting is bad … adjusting is good. “We will overcome” has been replaced by “We will be assimilated.”

On top of everything else that has been said it needs to be observed that in coming to this place what has also been eclipsed is the Biblical concept of the individual. If the problem is that man is not properly adjusting or relating or reconciling himself to the new state of affairs then underneath of all that is the individual is not rightly related to the mob, for it is the mob mentality that one must adjust to and be reconciled with. If there is no God, and no evil with the consequent implication that man in his corporate expression is the new god and refusal to integrate downward into the void with the mob is the new evil then man qua man has disappeared into the hive and the anthill.

Finally, an unwillingness to disintegrated downward into the void means a loss of salvation for salvation in this humanist paradigm lies in the constant revolutionary integration downward into the void. Those who refuse to adjust are eternally damned.

Keep all this in mind when you hear ministers suggesting that the God of luv requires this kind of thing of good disciples of Christ. Such ministers are ministers of Satan and knowingly or unknowingly are preparing your souls to be received by their Father the devil.





Rev. Mathis, Rev. Allberry, & Rev. McAtee Discussing Sodomy

“I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news.”

“Rev.” Sam Alberry
Editor — The Gospel Coalition

“11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”  Ephesians 5

Over here,

Does The Gospel Coalition Believe in the Heinousness of Homosexuality?

Rev. Shawn Mathis dissects precisely the problem with Rev. Allberry’s statements and legitimately asks why the organization “The Gospel Coalition” is supporting this kind of material.

Per the quote above and per the refusal of anybody at “The Gospel Coalition” to put the brakes on this mindset clearly, this kind of mindset has become acceptable in the conservative Reformed church. Some might even say that such a position is admirable if only because it comes across so sensitive. But change this just a wee bit and ask yourself if it should be applauded and ask yourself why it is being applauded.

“I am heifer-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to cows. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news.”

Rev. Allberry is trying to tell us that while same-sex attraction can be equal to romantic and deep emotional attraction to the same sex, same-sex attraction can not be equal to sin. This is like saying that having attraction to someone else’s wife is ok because, after all, the sexual attraction is characterized as a deep emotional attraction.

Why is Rev. Allberry talking about to whom he is attracted if sexual identity isn’t important to him? It is obviously important for him to identify who he is, in relation to his attractions. Why does he, as a Christian, find it acceptable to publish this?

You see, it is simply because sodomy has become mainstreamed and even dare we say “glamorous” so as to become acceptable in our thinking that such a quote as Rev. Allberry’s above fails to raise a firestorm of protest. Can anybody imagine John Calvin or Martin Luther or John Knox or Charles Spurgeon or Thomas Chalmers or C. F. W. Walther sitting on “The Gospel Coalition” board and not raising a hue and cry over this?

Rev. Allberry’s quote reveals the Gnosticism that much of the contemporary visible Church is riddled with. That there is a creeping Gnosticism here is seen also in this quote from Rev. Allberry,

“Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class, race, or nationality.”

The thing is, is that our class, race, and nationality, as well as our sexual affections, do define who we are as embodied beings.

In Platonic language Rev. Allberry is trying to tell us that even though he has the accidents of sodomy (sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex) those accidents don’t affect the essence of his identity. And yet here he is, in the context of denying this identity, admitting that he has all the markers that make up an identity. It’s like saying … “Milk is white but whiteness isn’t an accident of Milk.” One might observe that dealing with your sin tendencies by saying they aren’t a part of who you are is not a good, or successful, coping mechanism.

Now, of course, all error comes with those willing to make a ready-made defense and we find one Mr. Isaac Arthur defending Rev. Allberry by attacking Rev. Mathis and his article linked above. Mr. Arthur writes,

“Articles like this sacrifice understanding in the name of “discernment” and risk literally shutting the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.

As long as the mere suggestion that a person can be same-sex attracted and yet live a faithful Christian life causes people to doubt one’s commitment to Scripture, as long as the same-sex attracted are “them” vs. “us,” as long as the Church remains ambivalent towards the same-sex attracted (other than to castigate and label), as long as partnering with the same-sex attracted is a liability, I guarantee you the church will continue to lose ground and do untold damage to countless souls — souls bought with the very blood of Jesus. I don’t know Allberry well, and can’t vouch for everything he may have said or written, but I wonder: In trying so hard to not become desensitized to sin, are we becoming desensitized to the Gospel?”

This kind of “defense is pretty standard fare on this matter and as such, I take a few minutes to unwind this pottage of confusion.

1.) Since the Gospel is the cure to sin how is it possible that a sensitivity to sin will work in us a de-sensitivity to the Gospel?

2.) Since understanding is part and parcel of discernment how can understanding be sacrificed in the name of discernment since they each imply the other? Of course, Mr. Arthur’s point is that Rev. Mathis has neither a true understanding nor a genuine discernment. This is just a fancy way for Mr. Arthur to say, “Nuh Uh.”

3.) No one denied that a person attracted to the same sex or to cows or to children can’t yet live a faithful Christian life. What has been denied is that the impulse for the same sex or for children or for cows is normative. What is being denied is that said impulse should be suggested as being normative.

4.) The Church (Rev. Shawn Mathis in this case) is being anything but ambivalent towards same-sex attraction. It is precisely because Rev. Mathis loves the sinner that he is not letting Rev. Allberry’s irrationality pass un-noticed.

5.) For 20 centuries the Church has not lost any ground in its full-throated opposition to sodomy in all of its expressions from the sodomite desire to the sodomite following through on the desire.  It is just an inaccurate statement that the Church is going to lose ground by opposing all expressions that would make sodomy normative.

6.) Responses like this from Mr. Arthur only serves to literally shut the gates of the Kingdom of heaven in people’s face.

The crux of Rev. Allberry’s article is the question, “Has our theology morphed to blend in with our pagan environment?” Tragically, for the majority of self-described Christians, if they possess a scrap of personal insight, the only honest answer is, “Yes, absolutely.”


The Week in Review — 17 February 2017 – 24 February 2017

1.) The University of Washington says proper English grammar is racist.

2.) CNN Talking Head Chris Cuomo, via Twitter, says that Father’s who don’t want their little 12 y/o daughters seeing little boy male parts in a shared locker room are being over-protective and intolerant.

3.) Democratic National Committee Apparatchik, in a Nationally televised interview with Tucker Carlson, insists that there is no biological founding to determine gender AND that the science is settled that supports the existence of men being born in women’s bodies and vice-a-versus.

4.) Talking head David Gregory insists that America has always been a multicultural nation, while others on the panel blurt out that Steve Banon is a White Supremacist because he believes that America has a unique culture.

5.) Keith Ellison, well known Congressional Muslim may be seated as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

6.) US Sec’y of Education, Betsy DeVos resists the idea of rolling back the Federal mandate that government school bathrooms must be co-ed so as to service trans-gender (sick and / or perverted) children. Roll back goes forward anyway.

7.) Dr. Larry Arnn, President one of the most prestigious putatively Conservative Colleges in America gives a speech defining Conservatism and proves that he doesn’t know what Conservatism is and that he is a classical liberal.

8.) Melania Trump reads the Lord’s Prayer, in what is an obvious ham-handed political gimmick and the plebes go wild in fly over country.

9.) Indiana Wesleyan University, 35 short years ago the flagship of conservative Wesleyan-Arminianism, holds its first annual “Love Revolution” days offering a smorgasbord of multicultural type seminars for students to attend.

10.) In a New York Times Editorial Board Op-Ed piece the Times’ laments the prospect of a whiter America by writing, “Where could the demonizing and dehumanizing of the foreign born lead but to a whiter America?”

Look, if all this doesn’t trouble you significantly then you are not level.