Attending the gym as a “married man”
This is another wild blog to write. You likely read my blog about dating in 2026, well this puts a whole new spin on the relationship world these days. Full disclosure: I am not married nor ever have been.
This story starts with a very good friend of mine in a volunteer group. We were talking about relationships at an evert and my friend told me I need to put myself out more. Likely out of concern but also that the older you get the more, uh let’s say baggage, appears in the dating scene. His wife agreed. While their suggestion was for me to get a puppy which probably could work, except that I am gone from the house for about 12-14 hours a day, making that a nightmare scenario for fido. So, their next suggestion was that I wear his wedding band when I’m out and about. I at first thought the suggestion was kind of gay in nature, like would a girl let another girl wear their lingerie, seems odd? But I said I would do it, somewhat regrettably. Disclosure: my friend and his wife are not swingers they are married with 2 very young children.
So, heeding their advice, I wore my buddy’s wedding band to my gym at my next work out. Boy was I reluctant but did it anyway.
Wow!
The results were unworldly. I had two women openly hit on me while I was on the treadmill. Oh, and I don’t consider a girl smiling or saying “hi” hitting on me by the way. A third women gave me her phone number while I was at the squat rack. While outside at the pool area doing farmer carries, two other women openly were hitting on me. While laying out at the pool after working out, a “cougar” (I put her at around age 55) actually was openly propositioning me asking if I wanted some action. I don’t know her motives, but I think the outside family bathroom (thanks Gavin!) locks from the inside, and we could have smashed there.
Contrast this to my normal workouts, I have never, in 20 plus years of going there for my workouts, been hit on, at all.
This was a wild ride that day. (OK “ride” might not be the best choice of words but anyway) for 1.5 hours I felt like an N’Sync or Backstreet Boys singer (I’m dating myself here. I know another sketchy word choice). But to be honest, the women hitting on me made it clear that they weren’t wanting or desiring to be girlfriend material.
This was during my work hours from 3:00-4:15 PM, so I believe this group to be stay-at-home mom/wife types. These women were looking for a hook up, or maybe sex on the regular because they aren’t getting much or any from their husband. All of these women expressing interest were definitely very attractive. I guess these babes were from a group that felt that “he is a married man and maybe I was looking for action on the side with a no tell agreement.” I have no idea. I will add cougar lady was very attractive and I did think she was going to, at one point, pull her bikini bottom to the side and offer to get it on in the cabana I was sitting in.
Oh, I didn’t wear the ring the following week…. Nothing but silence from the coeds.
The Chief
As In the Days of Noah
I’ve probably mentioned this before but felt like writing on it again.
Supposedly, Matthew 24 contains a rock-solid proof of the Rapture of the Church. First, here’s the passage in question.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Matthew 24:36–42.
Jesus says that something is coming and only the Father knows when. (We are actually given more context and time related information by Matthew but I’m strictly sticking to the quoted passage.) He then gives this analogy. People will be eating and drinking. Whoa. That’s evil? They will be marrying and giving in marriage. Whoa. That’s evil?
Seriously? Hey folks, life goes on, as normal but then Noah entered the Ark. Life still went on for another week.
“And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.”
Genesis 7:10.
Then the flood waters came. Guess what happened next?
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: Genesis 7:21.
Yep, all the bad guys died. The righteous folks, i.e. Noah’s family were safe in the Ark. The wicked were taken.
Ok, now look at verse 39 in Matthew 24. It actually says the exact opposite of when premillennial dispensationalists claim it does.
“39 And [they] knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
So, the bad guys knew not until the flood came and took them all away. Yep, the people taken are the wicked not the righteous.
Now look at verse 40 & 41 in Matthew 24.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
So, who is taken? The bad guys not the Christians.
FYI zero Christians were killed in the siege of Jerusalem. This was the reason that the church in Jerusalem sold their property and held it in common all the way at the beginning of the Book of Acts. They were told to flee when they see the signs and they did. Obey and live. In fact, you didn’t even need to be a Christian to avoid the coming judgment, just flee when the predicted signs appeared.
Jump back to the Sermon on the Mount; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Matthew 5:5.
So, class, who inherits the world? The righteous. We don’t inherit Heaven, but the earth.
Need more proof?
The righteous shall never be removed:
But the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.
Proverbs 10: 30
For evildoers shall be cut off:
But those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:
Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
But the meek shall inherit the earth;
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalm 37:9–11.
Jesus is promising that the wicked, those that oppose the Christians of the First Century, will be removed from the earth. This allows the meek to inherit the world.
The problem is not the Bible; it’s the false understanding that we have when we impose our presuppositions on the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.
In Matthew 24, Israel and more specifically, Jerusalem and its Temple, are about to be judged. The wicked Jews of the First Century are about to be judged for “all the righteous blood from Abel through Zechariah.”
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Matthew 23:29–38
47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:47–51.
The blood of all the righteous prophets ever killed in the history of the Bible would be required of this generation—those that heard the voice of Jesus just days before he was crucified. Folks, this promise is airtight. There is no deferring it or waiting until some future event thousands of years hence, it was going to happen to them, and it did. Jesus said the judgment would be so terrible that unless it was cut short, no flesh would be saved. Over one million people died in the siege of Jerusalem that ended in 70 A.D.
Folks, at the trial of Jesus, the crowd screamed let his blood be upon us and it was.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”
Matthew 27:25.
Within a generation of his crucifixion, the Jewish nation was wiped off the map. The Old Covenant era was ended forever. Jesus said I will take it from you and give it to a nation bearing the fruit thereof and he did. That new nation began with a remnant of Jews on Pentecost. Eventually, this righteous remnant began grafting non-Jews (Gentiles) into its assembly. This nation will encompass the entire world not just a small patch of land in Palestine. The Bible says that the Gospel was spread to all the civilized world before the New Testament’s writing was even completed. The Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven.
In the early church, there was apostacy in the form of Judaizers and gnostic teaching. Many fell away from the true faith. There was also persecution instigated by Jews jealous of the freedom found in Christ. Up until the end of Nero’s reign, Rome protected Christians from the Jews. Under Nero, persecution against the church began. The Apostle Paul and Jesus via Revelation both promised the church relief if they would stay faithful just a little longer. Relief came when Israel was judged for its sin. The apostate whore was burned by her lovers and destroyed just as John had recorded in Revelation 17.
The Olivet Discourse was a prophecy in 33 A.D. but history by 70 A.D. The Apostle John lived to see his prophetic work come to pass during his lifetime just as Jesus had promised on a beach in Galilee many years before.
Sorry kids. No Rapture in your future, just God’s promises … if you’d only believe them.
Dating in 2026
What a time to be alive. Women at gyms or beaches in thong bikinis. Women wearing leggings for every occasion. Women basically not even covering their top anymore. Women often look like refugees from rap videos dressing like they just can’t wait to be exploited again. It’s wild.
Getting said modern women to go on a date with you, on the other hand, is no fun chore.
I will lay out several instances of mine (and one of my friend’s) to illustrate the issues in the dating pool. William is/was not wrong with his description.
Servpro Chick: this attractive vendor came by my office every other month. She would shoot the breeze with me and was, according to my office partner, “very flirtatious.” I asked her out; yep, went on 3 dates with her. If you’re wondering, I thought after that many dates we would end the evening in the bedroom, but on the verge of “scoring” she confessed to me that she was married and had 2 kids. Yep. Maybe she was trying to see if she “still had it” but wow, what a way to treat your household.
Chick from one office down the hall: We actually met at the gym, on the treadmills. We spoke for about an hour. Quite literally two days later, there was a mixer for all employees in the building where we work. I saw her and went to speak to her; she acted like she didn’t know me. Previously we had a normal conversation, and then she brushes me off. This struck me as odd, but in essence why waste each other’s time pursuing further.
Spartan race chick: This one is truly bizarre. We volunteered several times to prepare racecourses for various venues. It happened that we worked together for hours at a time on multiple occasions in the past 2 years. She reached out to me in January and asked for my cell number. Oh yeah, after some texting with her, suddenly she said I just want to be friends. Again odd. Who asks for someone’s number to be friends only?
Dating app guy: This is actually from a coworker of mine. She matched with a guy on Hinge (dating app) and they had been texting each other. A date was supposed to happen Friday night, it was subsequently rescheduled to Sunday due to his “work commitments.” On Sunday, he ghosted her. Monday morning she told me he “unadded” her or something on that dating app. He then sent 3 messages to her saying she is “so beautiful and wanted a chance to make things up to her.” Of course she refused, she also declared she would be deleting the app.
There is a reason I do not do dating apps. It seems like that universe is filled with people just wanting a hook up, weirdos, whackos like the guy above, and people who don’t look like their profile picture. I’ve heard this enough that I believe this is the rule not the exception. I would rather just sit out that whole exploitation routine. As you can see, the dating pool is limited and not much hope anymore. But boy is the scenery great at my fitness club!
The Chief
Editor’s Note: then there is the issue of whether said dating prospect has all factor equipment or aftermarket modifications. Yuck! Puts a whole new spin on trust but verify. Just sayin’.
A Gigantic WTF in El Dorado County
I am actually at a loss and can barely find the words for this. William will tell you, half the time I’m interrupting him on our phone calls. For some background, El Dorado County is quite literally about 90% MAGA/Trump country. They gave Gavin the middle finger on covid shutdowns and are probably the reddest part of the state; (They were carved up in redistricting), but I digress.
I came across this today on my KCRA 3 news app.
Carl Cacconie, convicted of six counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child in El Dorado County, has been captured after nearly 10 months on the run, according to the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office and the FBI Sacramento Field Office.
Cacconie was located in Scottsdale, Arizona, following what officials described as an extensive joint investigation.
Convicted CA child molester captured in Arizona after nearly 10 months on the run
I had to re-read that several times. No chance it was El Dorado, no chance. It was. He was allowed to leave and return for his sentencing. For those of you used to getting your court related info from Law and Order, you are typically remanded to custody after a guilty verdict. For some reason this piece of trash was not.
Cacconie was found guilty on July 17, 2025, following a trial at the El Dorado County courthouse in South Lake Tahoe.
An El Dorado County jury convicted him of six counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14.
The victim, now an adult, said she was 11 years old when the abuse occurred. She previously told KCRA 3 she remembered being afraid that no one would believe her.
“He was an adult. People would believe an adult before me,” she said. After the verdict, she described feeling relief after years of pain.
“It was a sense of relief,” she said. “All of the tears — it was all worth it in the end. Even though it was one of the hardest things I’ve had to go through, it felt like a huge weight lifted off my shoulders.”
Huh? Damn! It’s like the Michael Dukakis weekend prison passes from years ago.
Despite the conviction, Cacconie was not immediately taken into custody. According to the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office, a deputy district attorney requested that Cacconie be remanded into custody while awaiting sentencing. That request was denied.
Instead, Cacconie remained out of custody on $1 million bail after previously surrendering his passport and being fitted with a monitoring device. El Dorado County Judge Michael McLaughlin allowed him to leave the courthouse and return for sentencing on Aug. 25, 2025. Cacconie faced up to 18 years in prison. He never showed up.
“Where is he? He just disappeared,” the victim previously said.
Oh damn, so the guy who is likely looking at the better part of several life terms or like 580 years in jail didn’t show up to his sentencing? Wild. I cannot believe it. Alert the press.
On Aug. 17, 2025, Cacconie’s monitoring device stopped transmitting, according to the District Attorney’s Office. He was last seen in San Francisco on Aug. 22, 2025.
On Aug. 25, the day of his sentencing, Cacconie’s family informed the court that they had reported him missing and said he had left behind his phone, wallet and a suicide note.
The victim’s family said that without the discovery of Cacconie’s body, they believed he was alive. On May 14, 2026, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Cacconie in the Eastern District of California for unlawful flight to avoid confinement, which officials said was meant to aid efforts to locate him. Less than a month later, Cacconie was captured in Arizona.
It remains unclear whether anyone who may have helped Cacconie evade authorities or hide while he was a fugitive is facing charges.
In closing, why was this person allowed to be out on bail? Also, its El Dorado County not San Francisco County where I would expect this bullshit to take place. I hope he gets 580 years in prison, and they bury him under the jail.
The Chief
Doug Wilson on Christians and Politics
I don’t know if the passage which I quote below ever made it into print. I have very few books by Doug Wilson, maybe three. However, I think it has application on the Abolitionists movement so I wanted to place it on the record. As usual, I quote more than a sound bite or sentence fragment to insure that readers will understand the context; especially since verifying my transcript will prove difficult for most folks.. The source of my quotation is from a four lecture presentation on Eschatology. This is from Lecture 3 “The Power of the Cross”. I think it was recorded in the early 1990’s. This quotation is not about Abolitionists (since they didn’t exist at the time of the recording) but is applicable to them. Lastly, the transcript was made using voice recognition in Microsoft Word and then edited by me. Thus paragraph breaks and punctuation were created by me.
— Transcript begins now: —
Romans 4:13
“13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. “
Now, a very simple, straight forward thing, what was Abraham promised? Not just lots of descendants, he was promised descendants like the stars in the sky, he was promised descendants like the grains of sand on the seashore. But how does Paul put that promise here? What was Abraham promised? The world. All right? And who is promised the world along with Abraham? “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed …”, OK, in other words, the promise to Abraham is fulfilled not just in what is given to Abraham, but what is given to Abraham through his seed. So, what was Abraham promised and what was Abraham’s seed promised? The world.
Let’s put another, let’s throw another verse here that you are very familiar with, but nobody believes. “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit heaven when they die.” (laughter) “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), not heaven, the earth. Abraham and his seed were promised the world.
Now this is a very important distinction, by what instrument were they were they to be given the world? Not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith; not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Now let me, let me, throw a parenthetical comment in here, and I’m going to throw some turns out, you probably had a very similar experience with them. I don’t call myself a Reconstructionist but other people do, and when these other people say that you know Wilson’s a Reconstructionist, what do they mean?
They generally mean that I want to, and others like me, others of my ilk, want to march on Washington, institute biblical law, and impose it on everybody; wrapping it around their neck all the way down. Alright? Some sort of top-down thing. Well, that whole idea appalled me. It just, it just appalls me. There are Christians who do it and they’re called Dispensationalists. They’re the ones with Christian Coalition. They’re the ones with religious lobbying organizations. They’re the ones who are doing their big thing in Washington D.C.
The promise, and everybody thinks that because the politics is such an idol in our in our era, everybody thinks that if you if you believe that that the Christian faith is going to exercise universal dominion, everybody thinks that you’re running for Congress
It’s one of those bizarre things… I do believe that we are going to inherit the world. How? Through the righteousness of faith. Through the proclamation of the Gospel. The most important thing we can do for the recovery of godly order and civil decency is to bring about a reformation in the church. We don’t, we don’t need umm, we don’t need any more godly people going to Washington. H.L. Manchin, the erudite unbeliever said, “Trying to reform Washington by sending good people there is like trying to reform prostitution by staffing brothels with virgins.”
We just don’t fix things that way. Alright. You can send a good man to Washington, and the first thing that happens, is he grows in office. That’s the first thing that happens. He starts compromising. He starts going along to get along. We don’t, that’s not where the action is. The, Abraham, Abraham was promised the world. Abraham and his seed were promised the world; and it says not through law, but through the righteousness of faith. What does the righteousness of faith mean? It’s justification. It’s a response to the gospel. As we hear the gospel proclaimed, we believe the gospel, through that instrumentality; cultures, nations, peoples will be transformed and it will eventually be reflected in the political realm.
All right, but we don’t, we don’t go for the political realm, and try and reform the church. We reform the church, and through the Reformation of the church, will see the Reformation of families, towns, counties, entire nation, That’s, that’s what God calls us to but we don’t minimize the goal. You know, a lot of the people who are in Washington doing their thing, they want, they want our voice to be heard. They want as the saying goes, they want a place at the table. And I don’t, I don’t wanna place at the table. I wanna know who’s the cook. I just don’t want to place at the table, I want the table. I want the whole table and I want the Lord Jesus Christ seated at the head of it and I’m not gonna have anything to do with it until he’s honored and and honored at that position of headship. Now how is that gonna happen? It’s not gonna happen through me writing letter a letter to a congressman. It’s gonna happen through the work of reformation in the Church.
As the church has become sound and biblical that is, that is, what God tells us to do and there’s a promise attached to it. We know that this work of reformation that we’ve undertaken will not be unsuccessful, we know in the long haul, it will necessarily be successful because God’s promised He made a promise to Abraham. He made a promise to Abraham and to his seed. Every time someone’s converted, comes into the kingdom of God, there is God being faithful again, still to Abraham.
— End of Transcription —
My point in quoting Wilson is that he is saying the exact opposite of Abolitionists. Abolitionists want to reform the Church by passing laws in the States that will then enforce biblical law on the citizens with the hope that this will then lead to reformation of our culture. The biblical pattern is just the opposite; namely, start with the church and the revival of the church will lead to cultural and societal transformation. This was the pattern of the Reformation and it worked as long as the faithful were faithful.
The other question that begs asking is why not implement all biblical civil laws, why single out abortion as opposed to adultery, divorce, homosexuality, Sabbath breaking or disobedient children? Abortion, adultery, and divorce are just as common in the church as in world at large.
In the next few days, I plan on posting a transcript from David Chilton that answers my question about whom should we really start with if we want to reform our society and culture.
Voter Fraud In CA? I now say yes!
Folks this will be a short blog, but I have done a 180 on voter fraud. Specifically, the Los Angeles Mayor race result. That is the specific target of this blog. On election night (keep in mind CA will be counting ballots 32 more days) had Spencer Pratt making the runoff with incumbent Karen Bass. This was a result that was expected if you read the analysis post-election night. The experts were expecting Pratt vs Bass. Whelp a vote drop two days or so after election night gave the 3rd place finisher Nithya Ramen a 3,000-vote lead. The AP called the race today for those 2 finishing in the top 2. Ramen is a far left damn near communist, Bass is very liberal herself and also trained in the ways of Karl Marx. To me it makes zero sense that 2 people that share similar political positions would finish 1-2 with the vote share they got!
While I have zero proof of actual fraud, a large gain of votes by a single candidate will always get my attention. It reminds me of the “vote count stopping” simultaneously in major cities until tomorrow morning in 2020 Presidential election and viola when the count resumed, Joe Biden had miraculously picked up insurmountable vote totals.
You see the issue out here in California is that we send everyone a ballot who is registered. Everyone. You have to mail it in or drop it off to a vote center. That center then sends it to the county clerk where it is processed. The ballots are opened and then the signature is verified. Allegedly. I do not believe they can be verifying signatures as millions of ballots must be counted. Seems like an exercise in futility. The ballots can be postmarked on election day, so they are likely to receive ballots as late as today in the mail. It is also alleged that ballots with no postmark are required to be counted under California election law. Counting will continue.
If you want people to believe there is no voter fraud, why not make the process more transparent? 37 days to count votes? Strange result dumps that make no sense? Saying you verify all signatures when they seem dubious? Once people start thinking there is fraud, it’s hard to get them to change their minds.
Again, while I have no proof, the election result in LA smells; Pratt should have made the top 2. Something is very fishy here.
The Chief
Turning Down the Abolitionist Noise
These last few days have been very irritating for me. I took drastic action; I dumped a Facebook “friend” because his focus on Abolitionism has made my blood boil too many times.
I think Abolitionism is a cult or something approaching it. Logic, dialogue, reason, evidence, and other forms of information exchange have no effect on people that have swallowed that particular red pill.
They disassociate themselves from everyone that has a different opinion than themselves. They claim that only they are right and look for ways to divide others from themselves. They utilize scorched earth tactics on those with whom they disagree and vilify them as morally evil, traitorous to Jesus Christ, and tools of the devil.
Abolitionists claim to oppose “abortion child sacrifice”. Please note that these three words always appear together and in that order in their literature. For many years, prolife people have compared abortion on demand with accounts of the Old Testament which speak of apostate citizens of Israel sacrificing their children to the pagan god Moloch. (Yes, I know that “Moloch” has about five different spelling variations, but it’s all the same dude or demon, as the case may be.) Abolitionists have flipped this analogy into a real thing; they really believe that every woman seeking an abortion is killing her baby to give her unborn child to Moloch as an offering.
On the basis of the Ten Commandments; namely, “Thou shalt not kill,”; they want to criminally prosecute every woman that seeks an abortion for the crime of murder. They want this to be the law of the land in the United States, one state at a time.
Traditionally, prolife groups want to have laws to restrict surgical abortion, medications that can cause abortion, and in some cases, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Prolife groups typically offer counseling and try persuading young women to seek salvation and comfort in Christ. Several groups offer Bible studies geared to healing and offer prenatal care and material support to encourage women not to abort. Stopping abortion or an abortion decision is based on reason and material aid to the expectant mothers. Most prolife people are into real world intervention and as they are able push for legislative reforms to protect the unborn.
Abolitionists view such prolife legislative ideas as traitorous and call supporters of such proposals, “traitors” or worse. Abolitionists will oppose any politician sponsoring such a bill unless it also criminalizes the woman seeking the abortion. Utilizing a tactic employed by Aaron Park, in several smaller states they have purchased URLs in the candidate’s name and billboards proclaiming that Senator Jones (or whoever) supports abortion because his prolife legislation does not penalize mothers.
Below is one example, Oklahoma State Senator Todd Gollihare. Gollihare is up for re-election on June 16, 2026. Abolitionists have targeted this guy for not criminally penalizing women that seek abortion. Please note the URL at the bottom of the billboard ToddForAbortion.com Note the Senator Gollihare says he is 100% prolife.
They have defeated some state legislative candidates by using these tactics and thus will be employing them even more. (I think this was the basis of their election day attack a few weeks ago on Scott Herndon; my new State Senator.) Please note, as I hope to demonstrate shortly, that they only attack Republican prolife candidates.
Abolitionists have effectively declared war on the entire prolife movement and castigate them as traitors to life and sell-outs. In a previous blog post, I included a partial hit list of prolife groups that they have called out for apostacy.
I have attempted to dialogue with these folks and been shot-down every time. They are condescending and dismissive.
Ronald Reagan, who in my opinion was the greatest President of the 20th Century, used to get legislation passed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives by building coalitions with other people that agreed on the wisdom of a particular piece of legislation. When he could find agreement, Reagan would work with someone and when he couldn’t, he would find someone else. Reagan never burned bridges with anyone, he just learned when and how to work with folks when he could. Much of his legislative success was accomplished by his personality and charm.
Abolitionists are “all or nothing” single issue people. It’s them versus the world because everyone not with them, is identified as “of their father, the devil”. Hence, my previous comparisons to Barbara Alby and CRA.
This week, I ran across a few threads or possibly reposts of the same one with different graphics with the old and tired mantra that they would never vote for the lesser of two evils. This is the usual crap that surfaces every so often that not voting or skipping that race is more virtuous than actually picking a side. They will only participate in the political process when somebody they agree with gets on the ballot under their own steam. They reserve the right not to vote at all but are totally willing to bump-off a prolife candidate, even in favor of a proabortion one; if said prolife person manages to piss them off. Purity or punishment seem kind of Marxist to me.
I went into the bowels of my Facebook account and located the gem.
“Trump’s legacy will be that he presided over the largest holocaust of human history while trying to shift attention away at every turn.
I regret my vote for him. I repent. Never again.
I thought that he would move the needle in the right direction.
I thought that his appointments to the court would make all the difference.
I wanted my vote to “count.” I wanted to be a part of the process. I didn’t want to be left out.
I wanted to believe that I had a champion fighting for what I believed in. “My guy” in the ring, who, although we had serious disagreements, at least I could feel like my side was winning the tug-of-war when he was out in office.
I thought that if I didn’t vote, I couldn’t complain. That’s what I was told.
I thought that voting for a pro-legal-abortion pagan and fake Christian would somehow cause things to be better for the preborn.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Biblical answer is to refuse to do evil that good may come.
The Biblical answer is to appoint only “men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.” (Exodus 18)
Turning in a blank ballot is saying “no” and “woe” to:
- Compromise
- Partiality
- Injustice
- Delay
- Unequal weights and measures
And ultimately it’s saying “no” and “woe” to a Conservative Party bent on regulating instead of abolishing legal child sacrifice.“
But the liberals will destroy the nation!”
Not any more than God will destroy the nation that tolerates child sacrifice.
May the Republicans lose every election until they repent and fight to establish real justice and protection for those being murdered.
If you have a true abolitionist to vote for, support them regardless of their estimated chances of winning.
If you don’t, don’t be tempted to support the people who, through cowardice or compromise or corruption, will work to maintain the legal status of human sacrifice.”
~ Abolitionist Peter Daniel Webb
This was added by a person reposting the thread above:
The Biblical answer is to vote only for people who will judge without partiality. Meaning those who will never draw lines and say, “these people can be murdered, and these can’t” and “these people can murder, and these can’t.” Re-drawing the lines in a different place is still partiality.
The Biblical answer is to say, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice… and make the fatherless their prey!” (Isaiah 10) You can’t vote for someone and be a prophetic voice of “woe” at the same time.
⍲//⍱
One Abolitionists supporter wrote:
William who said don’t vote? It’s not that we don’t vote, but choose not to vote for a man who is evil and promotes child sacrifice. The same way we should not vote for someone who promotes and put for bills for the murder of a one year-old child in order to save the two-year-old child. It’s wicked and evil. We should not vote for that individual that promotes evil who oppresses a human being.
I vote, but I did not vote for evil in order that some good may come out of it.
My response was:
… by not voting, you are abdicating a right and tool that God has given you to peaceful transform society; something we are commanded by Scripture to do.
If you don’t like a candidate, then put forth another and persuade folks to support that person. You can’t change the system if you don’t participate in it.
Christ is ruling now. If Obama or Biden or Bush or Trump is President, then He has willed it for His purposes. Our ballot choices are given to us by God, and it is our duty to pick the best person, not throw a tantrum because everyone on the ballot is a flawed image bearer of God.
Lastly, I find the unwillingness of Abolitionist folks to work with other prolife groups very disturbing.
Translation, we want only to be ruled by the most oppressive tyrants that the Democrat Party can give us until such time as Republicans, who we refuse to help in any way, field a holy enough candidate that we might be inclined to vote for him.
Ok, so anyone that agrees with Abolitionists less than 100 percent is the enemy, all women who have had abortions are to be tried for murder and executed (this is the Biblical punishment for murder), prolife people are the problem because they are compromising traitors to the cause, and anyone claiming to be a Christian that has a different opinion on life is to be vilified. Sounds like a winning formula for transforming society.
Oh, can anyone cite for me any Christian society in the last 2,000 years that executed women that aborted their children? Just one.
Why do they claim only one verse, Exodus 20:13, covers abortion. This is untrue. It is lazy exegesis and sloppy theology.
So, what will this utopian society look like once the Abolitionists have executed 30 or so million women in our country? Isn’t this just the rightwing version of the Muslims or Taliban?
Look, biblically speaking, we all deserve death for the sins that we have committed. Jesus died in our place and by faith in Him, we can be saved This is the Gospel. Letting the Abolitionists act as God’s agents to avenge one particular sin which they claim to never have committed seems rather narrow to me. If you want to really punish sin, let’s execute all the adulterers, homosexuals, liars, witches, disobedient children, those that don’t keep the Sabbath, and all the rest in the Bible that are worthy of death. Sooner or later, we all will be on one of those lists deserving of execution. Oh, and just for fun, let’s start this purge with the churches supporting Abolitionists.
Statistically, abortion rates and rates of divorce are the same within the Christian community as in the general population. Wouldn’t you reasonably expect that if the Church was doing its job that divorce, adultery, abortion, homosexuality, and a litany of other sins would be demonstrably less in Churches that are following God? Verses like “Let him who is perfect cast the first stone” and “Let your light shine” set a high standard that we are clearly not achieving now.
Can you see now why I previously accused the SPLC of funding these guys? They make the rest of us look really bad. But wait, doesn’t making the rest of us look bad make them virtuous? Nope.
How does responding to mass killing by advocating more mass killing solve anything and further the Gospel?
So yeah, I got this guy off of my Facebook feed but one of the Abolitionists websites has almost 500,000 followers so you better be worried. These wolves in sheep’s clothing may be in your congregation recruiting for vengeance on God’s behalf.
Eating Your Own Young
Folks, I keep thinking that I’m done posting about Abolitionists, but they won’t leave me alone. When it suits them, they pull the “we are more righteous than thou” card. As Clint Eastwood once said in one of his many Dirty Harry films, ‘You are a legend… in our own mind.”
Twice recently, they have run hit pieces on people that are on their side—i.e. prolife.
On election day in Idaho, May 19th, local Abolitionists posted a hit piece on Scott Herndon; my local candidate for State Senate. Scott Herndon is a proven conservative leader and prolife. He was running against sitting Senator Jim Woodward. Woodward is vocal in his support of dismantling Idaho’s profile laws. (Woodward was prolife when his votes were pyrrhic but once Roe v Wade was tossed, he changed his tune and started advocating that Idaho undo its prolife stance.)
Woodward and Hendon have been swapping the seat in Senate District 1 since 2020. Oh, note to our California readers, the term for a State Senator in Idaho is two years, not four as in California.
Despite the Abolitionists best efforts, Herndon won decisively in the rematch with Woodward. Recently Herndon has won on “off years” while Woodward has won during Presidential election years. Presidential elections bring out low information voters that frequently screw it up for the rest of us. Having Herndon as the local Senator was a key factor in my wife and I deciding to move to north Idaho several years ago.
FYI: An Abolitionist candidate with zero political experience ran for Senate District 3 and scored 28 percent of the vote.
If you don’t recall, Abolitionists want the death penalty for every woman that seeks an abortion, as well as any “physicians” involved to helping her procure said abortion. Herndon is not willing to go that far and in their minds is thus a traitor to the cause of life.
Next, candidate 28 percent posted a piece about Donald Trump being the most bloodthirsty president in the history of the nation. Under the new statistics on abortion making their rounds on social media, they show an upward trend since the Covid lockdowns. I question these numbers since historically the numbers have been in terms of surgical abortions while the proliferation of abortion pills and IVF have not—to my knowledge—been part of the numbers until Roe was tossed by the Supreme Court. Also, the most reliable numbers on abortion in the United States have always been generated by Planned Parenthood. PP has financial and political reasons to monkey with the numbers, so I don’t fully trust them. Decades ago, prolife groups decided to go with the numbers from PP anyway.
Joe Biden opened the floodgates on mail order abortion pills and Trump has been slow to restrict them. This is partially due to government bureaucrats pushing back on Trump’s stated agenda. While wanting to restrict mail order abortions, Trump has pushed for wider availability of IVF which is a reason that prolife groups have been attacking him; however, none come close to the vitriol of the Abolitionists.
This brings me to the core of the problem with Abolitionists; namely, they have nothing to offer but complaints.
After I saw the attack on Trump that they posted of Facebook, I stated that Trump was a far superior choice to the Democrat offering for President in 2024. I point blank asked who was their candidate for 2028? Can their guy win a majority of primaries in the 50 states? Do they have 2 billion dollars in cash to help their guy campaign for the White House? (By my math, that’s 500 million for the primary and 1.5 billion for the general election. FYI my numbers are likely too low for the next campaign cycle.) Do they have a majority of people in the House of Representatives and the Senate ready to pass their idea into Law? Do they have enough judges to successfully litigate their Abolitionists Law?
As expected, they had no response. Sorry, but “Orange Man bad” is not an informed response.
Abolitionists summarily reject any incremental implementation of their ideas. They are scorched earth all the way. They want 100 percent of everything; they want all at one time or nothing at all. Anyone that succeeds in reducing abortion is a traitor because in one fell swoop, they can’t stop all abortions. Abolitionists reject any type of incremental reduction of abortion.
Folks, when you begin with the notion that only thermonuclear weapons can be used to subdue your enemies then you have nowhere to go. This makes Abolitionists a suicide cult not a political movement. What’s worse is that they are doing this in the name of God.
In the 2,000-year history of the Christian Church, I don’t know of a single woman executed by a Christian society for getting an abortion. The Bible has lots more to say about the subject and Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill (or commit murder)” is not the right passage on the subject. Abortion is mentioned in both the Old and New Testament, but most Christians are too lazy or ill-informed to know where to see it in black and white. (I’ve mentioned it elsewhere on the blog, so I won’t go over it here.)
Abolitionists are not about stopping abortion. They are all about unchurching everyone else and taking pride in the fact that they are not like those other sinners. They are smug hypocrites using pride to put everyone else down. There is no salvation via politics or cramming their values upon the unwashed masses by passing a law and then wrapping it around our necks until we agree.
I have asked them repeatedly about starting with educating and persuading the average church member about things like IVF and abortion pills but that takes work which they are unwilling to do. I think they want to pass a law instead of work through the church because they don’t have the numbers to move the needle within the body of Christ.
They want a quick fix. Abolitionists want a law passed and then hope it will force a change in behavior of the church. This is power religion not biblical religion. Baptizing the Messianic State does not make the State suddenly become Christian, at best the State just adopts a few new vocabulary words and consolidates even more power.
Gary North has written so much against this type of nonsense; especially in terms of Pharoah versus Moses. I know Doug Wilson has spoken against it as have many others. Candidate 28 percent has even reposted quotes from R.J. Rushdoony on his Facebook page but clearly, he has never read a single book by the man. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law is about reforming the church and the duty of Christians to subject every area of their life to Christ. Yes, the State has biblical role to play but it is not right for the State to reform the Church. The Church is to reform the State. Biblical government is limited government.
Abolitionists are running down a rabbit trail halfcocked and wondering why the rest of the world isn’t following them over the cliff. When you zoom past the roadrunner holding a sign that says, “Gravity” then you know what happens next.
Lastly, the Abolitionists are exactly the type of group the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is accused of funding on the Right to justify painting us all as extremists, as they raise even more funds to promote leftwing causes. Ditto for the FBI under Joe Biden creating domestic terror groups on the right where none existed before. Abolitionists are broken folks tilting at windmills in their own minds.
Acts 1:11 Gary DeMar v Jason Bradfield
The following discusses “Preterism.” Preterism is the belief that certain passages in the Bible were predicted and then fulfilled. To some degree, all Christians are preterists. They believe the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. The issue is which biblical prophecies are fulfilled, and which are future. Within a subset of Protestants, a debate is raging over which prophecies of the coming of Jesus are future and which were fulfilled by the events of 70 A.D.—the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem.
Three Questions
In 2023, a letter was sent to Gary DeMar with three questions. The letter demanded that Gary affirm three statements as true. The statements were about biblical doctrines, but no supporting verses were included.
The three questions asked of Gary DeMar in 2023 were:
- Do you believe in a future, bodily glorious return of Christ?
- Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
- Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?
The letter then goes on to state:
To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview.
The letter was leaked onto Facebook because DeMar didn’t respond. Public pressure was brought to bear on DeMar, and a website was even set up to solicit signatures of people that affirmed the questions. On the website, the three questions were expanded to seven weirdly worded questions; supporting verses were also added. The weirdly worded questions employed the type of verbal gymnastics that California voters are frequently confronted with where “no” means “yes” and “yes” means “no.”
The letter’s author, and agreeing signatories, were trying to position DeMar as a heretic—in their mind DeMar is a closeted full preterist—while they are Orthodox because they are partial preterists which affirm the Historic Creeds. (More on that shortly.)
Before being aware of the website, Gary DeMar responded by saying, which verses apply to these questions? Tell me that and then I will respond.
Once the verses were attached, DeMar was presented with a target rich environment. The signatories were at odds with each other as to which verses applied to A.D. 70 and which to the final return of Christ at the end of history.
The Historic Creeds
In the circles that DeMar runs in, folks are Presbyterian. They acknowledge the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Westminster Confession of Faith. The controversy before people contemplating the Three Questions are mostly related to the return of Christ as mentioned in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.
“… he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” — Apostle’s Creed
“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” — Nicene Creed
“… and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” — Nicene Creed
DeMar’s Response
DeMar spent many hours on subsequent podcasts pointing out that the signatories did not agree as to which verses listed as supporting the Three Questions applied to the coming of Christ in judgment in 70 A.D. and which applied to a return of Christ at the end of history. Gary’s response was essentially, what am I affirming if y’all can’t even agree amongst yourselves on the position of Orthodox Christianity.
Some of the signatories have changed their positions over the years, one of which is Kenneth Gentry. Gentry has changed his mind on his interpretation of parts of Matthew 24. His current view seems to be nonsense to me and unsupportable. Either Matthew 24 is past or future, but Gentry has decided without any textual support to split it so one verse is fulfilled and the next verse is future and then the next verse is fulfilled again. I don’t agree with splitting past and future at Matthew 24:35 or thereabouts but at least that way keeps verses one to the split together, so the first half is history and the remainder is future. However, Gentry does not do that either.
Part of the issue is that the Creeds have no biblical citations to show where the various clauses come from.
Here is an example of the problems that this creates.
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Matthew 16:27.
Again, the Apostle’s Creed “he will come to judge the living and the dead”
These sound a lot alike but read the next verse.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:28.
Read verses 27 & 28 together. Jesus said the Son will come with angels and reward (judge) every man and some of his First Century listeners would not die before they see this fulfilled. They would live to see him coming into his Kingdom!
Folks, many texts create similar problems. They were future to the people to whom Jesus spoke but fulfilled before the Creeds were even written. DeMar’s point was that the authors of the Creed ignored the time texts and just assumed it was speaking of a future event. As DeMar often says, “They [authors of the Creeds] didn’t show their homework.”
Per this verse, the judgment of all men is not a future expectation as the Creeds imply because some men were already judged—unless you want to say Jesus was a liar—which no signatories or DeMar would allow as a possibility. I think DeMar’s friend, Kim Burgess, would answer that the judgment of men according to their works (Matthew 16:27) was completed when the Old Testament Saints were released from Sheol and allowed to enter Heaven. This would have been between the Ascension and 70 A.D. Thus, Jesus literally opened the way into Heaven and before that time, nobody went there when they died. On this point, the Westminster Confessions are wrong. Only after this First Century judgment was “absent from the body, present with the Lord” a reality.
The problem that Gentry and others have is that they are wedded to the traditions of the Church. Sola Scriptura is not really a thing for them when considering this topic, they assume the tradition is right and then try to shoehorn everything into it. This is why Gentry changed his position on Matthew.
If you took every verse cited by one or more signatories of the Three Questions as applying to A.D. 70, you would end up with no verses applying to what is traditionally regarded as “The Second Coming”. This is why they regard Full Preterism as heresy. The underlying assumption of the signatories is that something must remain to support the position of the Creeds and the Church. DeMar points out that they have no agreement on the topic, but they assume the truth of the proposition because Church tradition and the Creeds demand it.
Jason Bradfield
Kenneth Gentry has been putting forth Jason Bradfield as his attack dog on Facebook to counter Gary DeMar. I have two issues with this. First Bradfield comes across as holier than thou and smug in his attacks on DeMar and second, Gentry reposts Bradfield in a way that completely blocks comments on any of Bradfield articles. Thus, Bradfield does not have to defend his attacks on DeMar. To me it’s gutless if you are unwilling to defend your position.
The most recent volley between the two was on the topic of Acts 1: 9-11. Posts by both men on this topic went up on the Internet on March 22, 2026.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts 1:9–11.
First, here is what DeMar posted.
Most futurists use this verse to show that Jesus will return in His physical body because that would be necessary in order to fulfill “just in the same way” He went away. The problem is that this Greek phrase is translated differently in other parts of the NT [New Testament].
The above quote from DeMar is not an exhaustive dissertation but from a teaser for a podcast episode on the passage.
Bradfield states this about DeMar:
Stage three is his only real engagement with the text itself: an argument about Greek phrase hon tropon (”in the same way” or “in like manner”). DeMar notes this phrase appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:28 Timothy 3:8) and is translated simply as “as” in those passages, not “in just the same way.” From this, he concludes that the translations of Acts 1:11 are prejudicially rendered, that hon tropon doesn’t actually require a precise correspondence between the ascension and the return, and therefore Acts 1:11 “not the slam dunk” people think it is.
Gary DeMar and Acts 1:11: The Art of Not Dealing With the Text
Based on what I have heard DeMar say on his podcast, Bradfield’s summary, which I quoted above, is correct. Bradfield then accuses DeMar of sleight-of-hand because DeMar does not deal with each Greek word in the passage.
If Acts 1:11 is the very text under dispute, you cannot settle its meaning by appealing to your conclusions about other texts. That is circular reasoning. You must deal with what this text says.
I frankly think this is Bradfield invoking his own sleight-of-hand to counter DeMar. To dismiss out-of-hand the way the Greek word is used anywhere else in Scripture as irrelevant to understanding hon tropon is prejudicial. Bradfield also ignores any passages that are parallel to Act 1:9-11. He deals with this verse in isolation. Whether he is employing the magic prophecy scissors, I will let the read decide.
Bradfield then goes on to dissect several Greek words in the passage. Ironically, he does this by citing other instances where certain Greek words are used—which he just castigated DeMar for doing. He does this by selecting quotes from Keith Mathison.
Mathison is having an imaginary conversation where he is rebuking someone else’s views as wrongly understanding the text.
Bradfield wants his readers to assume that said person getting rebuked by Mathison is Gary DeMar. In My mind this is a strawman argument or a tearing down via proxy. The things being rebuked by Mathison are things DeMar has never said. Bradfield is putting words into DeMar’s mouth via this method of analysis.
DeMar points out in his podcast that Jesus’s coming is described differently in different biblical passages. In some passages, Jesus comes on the clouds. Sometimes with angels. In Revelation he is coming on a white horse—Darrell Mansfield’s favorite description. Elsewhere, Jesus comes with a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. You get the idea. His coming is a fact, the particulars are more descriptive. Some are more literal than others.
The core of Bradfield’s article is:
DeMar also never addresses the presence of houtōs (“thus,” “in this way”) in this verse. He treats hon tropon in isolation, as though it alone carries the full weight of the comparison. But in Acts 1:11, houtōs and hon tropon work together: “will come thus (houtōs)…in the manner in which (hon tropon) you saw him go.” As Mathison explains, “The construction hon tropon is a compound adverbial phrase corresponding to houtōs. It means ‘in the manner in which’ or ‘just as.’ The use houtōs together with hon tropon serves to emphasize the point that Jesus will come in the same way that he departed.” This houtōs…hon tropon combination creates a double emphasis on correspondence between the manner of departure and the manner of return. This combination does not appear in Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:2 or 2 Timothy 3:8. DeMar’s cross-references, therefore, are not as parallel as he assumes.
Again, DeMar is not a careless thinker. He knows where the exegetical pressure points are. That is precisely what makes the pattern so damning. When he engages Acts 1:11, he isolates hon tropon from its context, ignores the verbs of sight and the spatial language that define the manner of the departure, and imports a conclusion from other passages rather than deriving one from the text at hand.
Essentially, Bradfield is demanding that the passage says that Jesus will physically return to earth in the same way that he left. Taken literally, the return of Jesus will be a local event that almost nobody will see except eleven or twelve folks on an obscure mountain top.
Compare Acts 1:9-11 to Revelation 1:7
Remember that the following verse is about the judgment on Jerusalem, not the end of the world.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 1:7.
So, every eye will see Jesus when he comes in judgment in 70 A.D. (Kenneth Gentry spends over 20 pages of his commentary on Revelation defending this interpretation) but in Acts 1:11, where Jesus is claimed to return physically at the end of the world, it is a private affair because his return is a carbon copy of his departure? Sorry but this makes zero sense. Clearly, Bradfield is trying to shoehorn the Acts passage into the preexisting mold of tradition and the Creeds.
Jason Brasdfield is trying to force at least two things from Acts 1, the when, and the how of Christ’s Return. If during the judgment on Jerusalem, “every eye will see him” then clearly Jesus came, and on the clouds too! The subject of “The Cloud” is important to the Acts passage too but gets zero mention from Bradfield. There is a long history and much biblical imagery attached to “The Cloud.”
The issue of Jesus coming more than once is also on the table but nothing from Bradfield on that either.
Bradfield can employ all the Greek Fire that he can muster but nobody has disputed that Jesus would return after the Ascension, it is the how, when, and how many times that needs to be addressed. DeMar is right. Once the signatories agree then have a chat with him and bring verses not slogans.
Conclusion
Gary DeMar has been singled out for special treatment for reasons that I just don’t understand. Gary doesn’t have to answer the questions. Frankly, his job is easy, pointing out the inconsistencies on the other side. I think Bradfield is tired of DeMar being evasive. I just think DeMar is having fun poking holes in the other side. They attacked him and he is making them pay for their stupidity.
The truth is that these guys agree on 98 percent of their theology. The Bible doesn’t tell us much of anything about what happens after death. When we die then we will be with Christ. Jesus comes multiple times in judgment throughout human history. It’s part of ruling on the Throne now. That is a present reality not a future hope.
Contrary to tradition, there are zero verses that say Jesus will ever set foot on planet earth again. I think he will, but I can’t find it in the Bible. The point of the New Testament is the end of the Old Covenant with its temples, blood sacrifices, and rituals. In the Kingdom age, we have work to do. The issue facing the Church in our age is Christians hiding out in their Churches praying for the Rapture, so they won’t have to transform their culture so it is subject to the Lordship of Christ.
Contrary to Premillennial/Dispensationalism, the focus of the New Testament is the Kingdom of God and his Church conquering the world. The last, last things (end of the world as we know it) are not for us to worry about. The Second Coming—whatever form it will take—will not happen for a very long time so quit worrying about it.
Enough with the circular firing squad, Jesus is knocking on the door of your church, will you let him in?
The CA Governor Race
It is the update you didn’t ask for, but due to the sheer number of folks running, and Eric Swalwell going up in flames, I feel compelled to comment.
There are about 200 folks running to replace Gavin Newsom as the next California governor, and to be honest, most Democrats that I speak with do not like the slate of choices they have.
What folks who live outside of California do not understand is, if you get elected governor, you are essentially a favorite to be the next nominee for President when you decide to run. During recent presidential years, the California Legislature has moved the traditional June primary way up to the beginning of March in an attempt to be relevant to the Presidential nominee selection process. The number of delegates available in California is about 1/5 of what you need to secure the nomination of either Party.
So, to my commentary.
I do not know if the candidates that make it to the November general election will be 1 from the GOP and 1 Democrat or 2 Democrats, it’s really that fluid. Here are the candidates at the top of the field and my thoughts on each.
Sheriff Chad Bianco
He is the MAGA sheriff from Riverside County. He is big into deportation and enforcing the law. (duh). He was/is my likely choice; I get a good vibes from him and feel we need a straight-talking sheriff. That being said, I think he finishes 4th. His talking points are not going to play here except in the very red and sparsely populated areas of the state. Trump endorsed Hilton (for reasons I do not understand) and as a result, his poll numbers fell about 5%. One thing to consider, the CAGOP did not endorse for governor which tells me he has strong backing in the party.
Xavier Becerra
I don’t get this guy. His entire campaign is “Trump bad!” He has no ideas. Just so people understand, the housing affordability crisis is even bigger in California than the rest of the US. A burger, fries, and a coke at Burger King is $18. Becerra is your classic “get me in the top 2 vs a Republican and I will win” candidate. He will finish in the top 3. My prediction is vague because he does have support from unions but mostly because his competition is……
Billionaire Tom Steyer
He has spent likely a hundred million dollars on TV ads. He wants to break up Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), which I doubt could happen or actually lower costs, but go for it! PG&E is an evil empire out here in California so picking on them does move the needle. PG&E has said it will spend 10 million to defeat him, classic stupidity as the ads will likely raise Steyers vote total. Steyer is also all in on the billionaire tax that qualified for the ballot in November. (More on that in another blog). Steyer is all in on flaunting his wealth, and I think that’s a mistake in the Democrat Party. Prediction, I think he finishes 2nd-3rd. He has been constantly second in the polling. Credit where it’s due, he actually has ideas.
Steve Hilton
Former Fox News host who hails from LA. He is leading the polls and will finish 1st-2nd. As mentioned, Trump endorsed him, so he has gotten a boost in polling. Trump carries a lot of weight. However, I won’t be voting for him. Hilton gives me an odd vibe; similar to how I feel about Sean Hannity. Hannity claims to hate New York City, yet says I’ve called New York home most of my life. Hannity drives and openly brags about his hybrid car, again it’s an odd vibe for a conservative. Hilton has lived here for years, immigrated from Britain. He doesn’t really have any ideas, it’s mostly boiler plate GOP talking points. He seems like a Country Club RINO Republican that the Republican voters in this state love. On social issues, I’ve heard there is no difference between Hilton and the Democrats. I will say this, I will not cast a ballot for him in either election.
Katie Porker
The babe who berated her staff constantly has zero chance. She will likely be 5th. She has now bizarrely stated it’s because she is a woman. Yup, that’s how I decide who to vote for, you got a vagina; stick to the kitchen and make babies, and while you’re at it, make me a sandwich toots. Maybe if she used the term “birthing person” and not a gender specific one, she would fare better?
Editor Comment: when did Democrats decide a woman has a vagina? Clearly the Chief has not been sufficiently indoctrinated during his employee training classes. I will have HR look into this lapse of judgment. Dear Democrat readers, please excuse his sexist presumptions about the rainbow of genders with which you can identify in the great republic democracy of California.
Closing Thoughts
As you can see, things will be interesting down the stretch here. I only lament that if Trump didn’t endorse, we may have been able to sneak 2 Republicans through. Such is life though. What I do think is exciting is we could have a vast array of finishes when all the votes are counted. I do not typically trust polling, but I feel confident saying Hilton gets one of the two slots. Steyer and Becerra are intriguing. Either could take the other slot. Do Democrats vote for the billionaire? Is simply being anti-Trump enough to get elected? It’s the flip of a coin; Becerra has been the late riser in the polling with Swalwell being eliminated.
Grab your popcorn, buckle your seat belt, and enjoy the ride.
One thing that could be interesting, Billionaire Tom Steyer vs Steve Hilton. While Steyer is simultaneously campaigning for governor and the billionaire tax, Gavin Newsom said he will pour resources into defeating the ballot measure. Democrats do not typically like billionaires. Is it vote blue no matter who? Or could Hilton backdoor his way to the governorship as an Arnold Schwarzenegger? At least Hilton is not promising to blow-up boxes like Arnold did. After all, boxes are a legitimate type of housing in many cities in California. That folks is proof that Hilton is a compassionate conservative.
The Chief