An Open Letter to the Boomers

Dear Boomers;

I have noticed that at least some of you (hard to say what percentage) have taken to tongue lecturing those a young white males a couple generations younger than you. It seems that you’re convinced, in light of their complaints over how difficult it is to make their way in the current culture, that they are just not working hard enough. I have seen you say things like, “if you just worked as hard as I did when I was your age,” and, “we Boomers had it harder than you did and we made it,” and, “you’re a whiner.”

Well, while I’m not really a Boomer, I am close. I am one of those chaps who is a tweener who falls right in between the Boomers and Gen. X paradigm. Now before I address this, let me tell you, that, generally speaking, I am not a big fan of creating general characteristics of the respective generations. It is my conviction that there are far too many factors that account for why people are the way they are. However, I am willing to concede that in a stable culture there are events that occur in each generation that could end up molding each generation in a similar fashion so that general truths might be taken as a given for each generation. Still, I think we need to be careful about over-applying this.

Having provided that caveat, I turn now to address the Boomers who have been tongue lashing the younger generations. Y’all are want to say that y’all had it more difficult than those who have come behind you in age. To that I can only say, in the strongest terms possible, that is total crapola.

The Boomers were the generation that had it all. Born of the generation that trudged through the Great Depression, and WW II, the Boomers lived in the best of times, prospering from the great largesse arising from victory in War. The Boomers are the ones who lived in excess. They were the first generation where the FEDS practically gave them free University education. The Boomers could dodge the draft by taking a school deferment. The Boomers had the luxury of protesting Vietnam in the streets, while the Boomer women burned their bras in protests as feminist. This could never have happened if they had had to work for a living. The Boomers rode the crest of the communications wave being the generation that could fritter their time away viewing television. It was with the Boomers that the phrase “teen-ager” was introduce with the purpose of marketing to you in order to sell you  all kinds of junk you didn’t need. Later Boomers also had the advantage of seeing the military draft disappear and some of them didn’t even have to register for a draft. The Boomers, thinking that they were having it all, derived the “benefits” of the sexual revolution. The Boomers channeled all that free sex then into Woodstock, Altamount, Haigt-Ashbury, Dead-Head concerts and every Rock -n- Roll concert that came to town. It was the Boomers who brought in the drug craze, who gave us the Hippie movement, and who were the ones cheering the androgynous lead singers found in nearly every Rock -n- Roll band.

Boomers, you were the ones who began the hash of marriage and family that we continue to live with now. You were the that generation who treated us to no fault divorce. How many of your children ended up raising themselves or being “latch-key kids?” How many of your children were visiting Dad on the weekends while living with Mom during the week? How many of your children grew up with step-siblings, half-siblings or in foster homes? How many times did your little children have to sit in listen to clueless social workers, friends of the court, or deranged judges?

Now, of course we are talking generalities here. We are saying that this was generally true of Boomers, though not universally true. I know. I was there. Having participated in some of this I think it is pretty schlocky of current Boomers to now turn and wag their fingers at those young white males who find getting a start in life difficult, and who are then turning and blaming that the Boomers didn’t do more to protect their generation. The generations behind us, I think rightfully, point a finger at us and rail about all our conspicuous consumption that ended up meaning the way was harder for them.

None of the above absolves the younger generation from the necessity to work hard or excuses them if they think they automatically get a pass for not being responsible because the Boomers were not responsible. It is just to agree with the younger generations that Boomers, generally speaking, failed at being good parents, failed at even considering what they were leaving behind for future generations and failed at being lights for future generations.

To the Boomers who still don’t get it, lets spend some time comparing and contrasting what we were not facing at 25 years of age (appx. 1980) with what those who are 25, who are doing the complaining, are facing today.

Were we dealing with Trannies and Sods like this when we were 25 in 1980? The US Military wasn’t even allowing sodomites into the military when we were 25.

Consider Boomers that all the stats are screaming that the middle class is being destroyed. The attack may have been ongoing when we were 25 but it isn’t what it is today.

And what of the paucity of suitable spouses for both Christian white men and women? Did we have the problem finding Christian spouses at 25 the way our sons and daughters are having that problem?

When you and I were 25 were we dealing with the deep state engineering a depopulation event like the scamdemic? Was biological warfare via quackzines going on?

Was cancel culture is full force when you and I were 25? Were the Universities — Including the Christian ones in full attack mode against the Christian faith? Was WOKEism saturating the landscape when we were 25 as it is today?

Was the PCA refusing to discipline sods? Was the OPC being run by feminists? Was the CRC allowing women Pastors when we were 25? When we were 25, though the landscape was changing the conservative denominations were still largely “conservative.” Now they are nearly all festooned with Leftism of one form or another.

When we were 25 was CRT in the secondary education curriculum? When you and I were 25 were parents being threatened by the FBI for protesting at school board meetings?

When I was 25 the Chinese communists were not on the verge of

economically taking over Michigan. Today that is a reality.

When we were 25 were we facing social credit systems? The crash of the US dollar? Were we facing “smart cities,” and the rise of the surveillance state?

When we were 25 were they trying to outlaw fossil fuels? Were they trying to put you and I in “electric cars?”

When we were 25 were the greenies on the verge of successfully changing everything because of “Climate change?” They are for today’s 25 year olds.

When you and I were 25 the family infrastructure in the West was declining but it was nowhere near the wreck it is today. When you and I were 25 we were not having to deal with imaginary borders and 30 million illegal immigrants in our homeland … not to mention all the legal ones.

When you and I were 25 miscegenation was not yet being crammed down our throat during ever media commercial, advertisement, and billboard.

When you and I were 25 we could still work in a factory and earn a middle class wage or we could manage to get through 8 years of post-high school education without being 100K plus in debt.

I could go on and on. Boomers, you just are being stubborn in this matter in refusing to listen with a sympathetic ear to the hardships of our children and grandchildren.

Face it, you and I did not do enough to deliver them from the sewage they are having to navigate.

Perhaps they will do better for their children than we did for them.

Wherein Rev. Toby Sumpter Goes Full Retard — Part II

Note — Torba is NOT a Pastor. I confused him w/ his right hand man, Rev. Andrew Isker.

 

So the Christian doctrine of nationality is diametrically opposed to that of Marxism. Nations are a necessary product of man’s creation, not his alienation; Christ’s atonement principally heals the nations;143 and eschatologically the nations will preserve their nationality unto all eternity, and not lose it in a colorless communist utopia.

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Communist Eschatology — pg. 773 – 774

 

If you remember in Part I we started analyzing this exchange between a high profile Pastor in the CREC, one Rev. Toby Sumpter, and Rev. Andrew Torba.

You may also remember that this exchange finds me as exacerbated as one can possibly imagine. I am gnawing down my fingers in an act of discipline to keep me from writing what I really think about Sumpter’s a-historical, unbiblical, and yes even asinine “reasoning.”

Honestly, I hope these birds like Sumpter and Fakin’ Owen Strachan keep getting out on these limbs because I am going to take maniacal delight in sawing off every branch upon which these stool pigeons, dodo birds, and crows are perched.

Anyway, as you recall the conversation between Torba and Sumpter went like this;

Rev. Andrew Torba wrote;

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Rev. Sumpter responded;

“At best this is half-baked primitivism, and at worst it’s a form of incestuous Judaizing and radically misunderstands the Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.

This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good. 

So wine and cheese and tacos are out y’all. Also, no mining, no fossil fuels, no building anything, no medicine — no changing or mixing anything that God made. Leave it raw and untouched just like it was when God said it was good. No fruitful dominion for you.

Despite the idolatry of statist multiculturalism, Christians must do better.”

And now we begin Part II with the second full paragraph dropping from the pen of the genius Rev. Sumpter;

1.) First, there in this matter the consideration of Scripture;

  “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.” 

Dt. 22:9-11

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:19

Now my point in citing this passage is not to suggest that it proves that the bible forbids cheese, wine and tacos. I cite the passage to demonstrates that God did have an opinion about adulterating, mixing and hybridizing. The point of these passages seems to be that God desired purity among His people and so there is to be no mixture between things that did not belong together. We note this because in the Deut. passage the broader context teaches that God’s people were not to blend what was to stay separate.

Now, I would list these laws as being among the ceremonial laws that were fulfilled with the coming of Christ and so no longer in force. However, I do hold that the commandment given to men themselves not to adulterate (7th Word) remains in force. God’s people are told that they are not to adulterate and to adulterate something is to diminish the purity of that something. Inter-racial marriage is an adulteration of both husband and wife and so when Rev. Torba advocates that ethnic groups be preserved he is giving counsel that is in keeping with the 7th commandment.

2.) Why Rev. Sumpter chose wine, cheese, and tacos is beyond me. It is obviously a non-sequitur. I mean maybe tacos fit since one has to mix lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, sour cream, olives, and hamburger to come up with a taco. If that is where Rev. Sumpter was going, do I have to really spend any time refuting his comparison of apples with lug nuts? Even with tacos though the lettuce remains lettuce and the tomatoes remain tomatoes…etc. When races are mixed nothing remains what it was prior to the adulteration.

3.) However, I’ll make a deal with Rev. Sumpter. If old Toby will give up advocating race-mixing I’ll give up cheese, wine and tacos. What do you say Tobe? Is it a deal?

(Since people in the CREC are demonstrating lately that they have no sense of humor allow me to say on #3 that I am joking. I will never give up wine, cheese, and tacos.)

4.) That Scripture and reason teach that race/ethnicities should be preserved it does not mean that peanut butter and chocolate cannot be mixed or that it is a sin to have a PB&J sandwich. Old Toby’s  attempt at a reductio ad absurdum here was, shall we say, absurd?  I mean by Toby’s reasoning because God forbids adulterating therefore married men and women should not be intimate because that requires a unholy mixing.

5.) Finally Old Toby insists that Christians must do better than Rev. Torba’s statement.

And here I am still waiting for someone to do better because Old Toby sure didn’t rise to the occasion.

Wherein Rev. Toby Sumpter Goes Full Retard — Part I

“Dude, You Just Went Full Retard.”

 Character Kirk Lazarus 
 2008 comedy film Tropic Thunder 

I have somehow entered an alternate universe as discovered by Dr. Stephen Strange when exploring the multiverse. In this universe there is absolutely no correlation between the usage of language and logic. Almost anything can be said that leaves the inhabitants of this alternate universe completely unphased. It’s like they all speak a different language each having their own decoder headset.

Below is a conversation I stumbled across between Rev. Andrew Torba and Rev. Toby Sumpter. Torba is a good man fighting on the side of the angels. Sumpter is an idiot as seen in this exchange below.

I am told that Sumpter is something of Doug Wilson’s right hand man these days. I have to wonder if when Doug sees exchanges like this if he doesn’t go all “double face palm.” Does Doug experience “cringe” at conversations like what we find below? Does Doug start looking around to see if Stephen Sittler or Alfred E. Newman (he of MAD MAGAZINE fame) might be able to replace Sumpter?

This is sooooooooo bad.

Rev. Andrew Torba writes;

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Bret interjects;

Now before we turn to Rev. Sumpter’s response to Rev. Torba let us take just a second to realize that what Rev. Torba has said above has been the position of the church for 2000 years. This is clearly and unequivocally proven by Achord and Dow’s anthology; “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology of Natural Relations.” (Have I mentioned lately that to date nobody has refuted this book and only one CREC clergy nincompoop has even tried and what a goulash he made of that attempt.

Anyway, after Rev. Torba made that comment above Rev. Toby Sumpter weighed in and I think this response deserves as wide as publication as possible. Sumpter replied;

“At best this is half-baked primitivism, and at worst it’s a form of incestuous Judaizing and radically misunderstands the Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.

This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good. 

So wine and cheese and tacos are out y’all. Also, no mining, no fossil fuels, no building anything, no medicine — no changing or mixing anything that God made. Leave it raw and untouched just like it was when God said it was good. No fruitful dominion for you.

Despite the idolatry of statist multiculturalism, Christians must do better.”

Just when I think I’ve found the bottom of CREC stupidity, Toby Sumpter steps up to the plate to tell me that I believe that Cheese, Wine, and Tacos must be out of bounds because I am a Kinist.

1.) Maintaining and preserving ethnic distinctions is incestuous Judaism?

Well, I guess Rev. Sumpter must conclude that St. Cyprian was guilty of incestuous Judaism;

“If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like unto themselves — and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments — how much greater is the gladness of God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race [genus] is announced!”

Dow and Achord note about this quote, “Cyprian’s argument presupposes that it is proper and fitting for men to take such joy, and hence that it is improper and unfitting for men to neglect the value of lineal similitude or, worse, to positively value dissimilitude.”

And according to Rev. Sumpter, St. Augustine is a practitioner of incestuous Judaism;

“Difference of race or condition of sex is indeed taken away by the unity of the faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine
Epistle to Galatians (3:28-29)

And Aquinas guilty of incestuous Judaism?

“God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently, man is debtor chiefly to his parents and country, after God. Wherefore, just as it belongs to religion to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e. — one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.”

Summa Theologica
Vol. III, Part II, Second Section

John Calvin guilty of incestuous Judaizing?

You betcha;

“Delightful to every one is his native soil, and it is also delightful to dwell among one’s own people… all his relatives and the nation from which he sprang.”

Commentary on Jeremiah 9:2

Puritan Thomas Wilson? Yep… he was a incestuous Judaizer;

“What do ye call natural affections?

Such as be among them of one blood and kindred, as between parents and children, husbands and wives, kindred, country, heathens, yea Christians also voice of these.

How does it differ from human and Christian affection?

Human affection is that whereby we embrace all men; natural affection is that where by we embrace them which are nearer unto us by blood; Christian affection is that whereby we love good men because they belong to Christ.”

A Commentary on the Most Divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans
3rd Edition. 1653, Chapter 1, page 54

I have pages and pages of quotes like this. I can demonstrate that per Toby Sumpter that the following men were guilty of incestuous Judaism.

Edwards
Winthrop
Althusius
Knox

By crackey, it would be easier to tell you who in church history has not been an incestuous Judaizer. At best this accusation is ignorant on stilts. At worse Sumpter was born with a birth defect in his ability to reason. You decide for yourself.

Let’s round off with one of my favorite from A. W. Tozer;

“You can’t change my mind about God having made us the way we are. The yellow man and the white man and the black man. God made our races. I know the Marxists and the bubbleheads say: “Oh, that’s old-fashioned baloney! Everybody should get together and intermarry and pretty soon there won’t be races, and where there are no races there won’t be any hate, and if there’s no hate, there won’t be any war.” Oh, for cotton batting to stuff in the mouths of people who don’t know better than that!

Many of you have taken a good look at history. Did you happen to notice that since the beginning of the world there never has been worse hatred between nations than today, and that hatred rarely crosses the color line? It is within the race itself.

 

The presence of specific races is not the source of our trouble-it is the disease of sin within our own hearts. Twice within twenty-five years the white Germans tried to kill and destroy the white Englishmen. Occasionally there are flare-ups between races, but mostly it is within races.

 

It is not race, brethren. It is sin, sin, sin, sin, sin! In place of having love for our fellowmen, we have quarreling, lying, and exploiting and competing to a shocking degree. Most people don’t want to be reminded that the Bible says we should love the Lord our God and our neighbor as our self.

 

 

Let me remind you of the warbler, almost universally distributed in this country, and will you believe that there are 120 species of this bird called the warbler in the United States? One hundred and twenty varieties, with only the slightest differences of feather, or wing, or stripe or spot. In these 120 varieties, we are told, there is no crossing the line, they mate within their own racial strain, hatch and have little ones. Nobody puts them through college, but when they get big enough to hop out on the edge of the nest and begin looking for another warbler, they always pick one like themselves, and stay within their own strain.

 

 

Now, you get a Communist or a starry-eyed American fellow traveler working on that, and he will say: “That’s an evidence of race hate, and it’s a proof those warblers hate each other!” Hate each other – your grandmother’s nightcap! They don’t quarrel, they never fight, they just go on living and warbling. They’ve got sense enough to know that God made 120 kinds of warblers just for fun to show what He could do, and He doesn’t mean for them to cross over and make one warbler out of 120!

I think it is a most amazing thing in our day that the godless who have sowed the seed of discontent among the nations try to tell us that racial lines are artificial and an evidence of “wickedness” – and they don’t even believe in the Word and won’t allow it to be used in any other way!”

What else can we conclude but that Rev. Toby Sumpter and his ideologically inbred CREC mates are just historical aberrations? Listening to these men is like discovering an island where everybody has a third eye. The inhabitants all think it is quite normal but the sane know better.

Next our brilliant Sumpter steps up to the mic and tells us that Rev. Torba radically misunderstands the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate. Indeed his brilliance is so effulgent I can barely read his words for the brightness of their glory;

Here we go again…

Did N.T. scholar Martin Wyngaarden misunderstand the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate when he offered:

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

How about Dr. Geerhardus Vos? Did he also misunderstand the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate?

“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.

Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

-Geerhardus Vos,
Biblical Theology

Again, in the words of Captain Steve Rogers, “I can do this all day.”

Next the genius Sumpter comes up with analogy;

“This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good.”

We will pick that up in part II.

 

 

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” VI

I.) “The fear of ‘human autonomy’ in determining suitable law, which some corners of Protestantism today voice, is misplaced.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 269

This is a breathtakingly amazing, naïve, and jejune statement. Does Wolfe live in the same culture I live in?

II.) “Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I would bet my retirement fund that 90% of conservative clergy would viciously disagree w/ that statement.

III.) “Taking dominion is not an adventitious duty or a divine positive command. It proceeds from the very nature of man, and so it cannot be rescinded, even by God, without violating the fundamental nature of man. The right to rule creation as vice-regents is derived naturally and necessarily from divinely granted majesty.”

Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 53

Well said!

Which is to say that dominion taking by the sons of Adam is an inescapable reality. It is never a question of “will you take Dominion” but only if you will take dominion badly or well.

IV.) “Supplying a set of laws, in my judgment, only feeds into the tendency of Westerners to retreat to universality, whereby people look for something outside themselves to order themselves concretely. A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws, and they should not seek some ‘blueprint’ they can rubber-stamp into law.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 264

WOW! For sure no Christian people would ever want to look outside of themselves to order themselves concretely. What was Alfred the Great doing when he gave the people the Book of Doom as a law code? Clearly, the Book of Doom was a sad example of a Christian people wanting to be ordered by a law outside of themselves.

No people should look to God’s ‘blueprint’ as a template for their law but instead should look inwardly to their own resolve, strength, and spirit?
How is this not pure humanism. I almost want to ask how this is not blasphemy.Keep in mind that Dr. Wolfe here is giving the backhand to Theonomy which does indeed insist that God “supplies a set of laws,” that should be implemented in every Christian culture while at the same time conceding that all Christian cultures will not look universally alike since it will inevitably be the case that different cultures will understand the principle of the general equity of the law differently. Yet, despite those very real differences each culture will rightly be understood as a “Christian culture” all following God’s law standard.

When Wolfe writes about, “A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws,” all I can hear is the lisping of the serpent saying; “hath God really said?”

Look, we need to realize that despite all the good things Dr. Wolfe says in his book, in the end he really is opposed to Biblical Christianity as demonstrated by this quote.

There is no predicting from page to page what Wolfe will say. No consistency. I can peg thinking to pragmatism, Thomism, squishy conservatism, Lutheranism, and yes, some Reformed thought. It is a pick and choose approach. Dr. Wolfe gives us a “total package theology.”

V.) “Christian homeland is a mode of true religion; it directs you to your ultimate home. Thus, serving one’s Christians homeland is serving the Kingdom of God.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 179

So, here we stand and applaud Dr. Wolfe.

I think if I spent a year reading Wolfe I would become bipolar or suffer from multiple personality disorder. It is amazing how one man can be so right and so wrong at the same time, as in one volume.

Doug Wilson, Crosspolitic Podcast, the CREC, and a Ohio Republican

In an interesting and happy confluence of events that really makes the point well that Doug Wilson, Crosspolitic podcast, and the CREC in general are out to lunch when it comes to the ability to properly analyzing our cultural moment we find a happening in Ohio recently sticking out its tongue at Doug’s insistence that Jew malice (left undefined) will not be tolerated as combined with Crosspolitic’s recent podcast starring Nate Wilson, Chocolate Knox, and Aaron Wrench where we hear that the Jewish question (JQ) must not even be discussed because it is so uncivilized, nekulturny and frankly, “not pleasing to Jesus.”

Then in God’s wonderful providence what should happen but a Republican Congressman in Ohio decides to denounce a fellow Ohio Republican for being “bigoted,” because a fellow Republican tweeted on Tuesday that  there is;

“no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.”

Congressman Miller’s exact words to his fellow Republican Marbach were;

“This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen. Delete it, Lizzie,”  “Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You have gone too far.”

Miller, having not yet clearly communicated his position also posted on social media;

“God says that Jewish people are the chosen ones, but yet you say we have no hope.”  “Thanks for your pearl of wisdom today.”

Now the kicker for the CREC types out there is that Ohio Republican Congressman Miller who condemned the above statement is Jewish. So we find someone with political power condemning Christianity 101 as being bigoted. Now, Congressman Miller finally did say “I’m sorry” and mumbled some words about his statement not being what he intended to say (Yeah, Right) but clearly all of this should be driving at least some conversation about the JQ. I mean if a Muslim Congress critter had said what Miller said can you imagine the response? Indeed Muslim Congress critters have said scurrilous things against Jewish people lately and there were all kinds of hue and cry to officially censor them in Congress. Why isn’t Dougie and the Crosspolitics guys and the CREC Doug wannabees declaring that we should not talk about the Muslim Question (MQ)?

But don’t quit reading because this JQ story gets even better. Sometime in the last 36 hours or so the Ohio Right to Life dismissed communications director Elizabeth Marbach from her position. Do keep in mind that it was Marbach who made the “disgustingly bigoted tweed about how being saved by Christ alone is our only hope,” to which Jewish Congressman Miller had so strenuously objected.

Did we mention that Jewish Congressman Max Miller’s possibly Jewish wife sits on the board of the Ohio Right to Life’s organization?