Friday, August 12, 2005



Friday Church News Notes, August 12, 2005 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service,, 866-295-4143) - Bro. David Cloud

On August 4, 2005, nationally syndicated talk American show host Rush Limbaugh said that homosexuality is not a moral issue because homosexuality is not a choice. He said that "conservatives" do not care what people do behind closed doors.

The following is from his web site:

"Nobody's against homosexuality. Well, I guess some people are against it. ... Most conservatives I know don't care about [homosexuality]. What they do in private is not a concern. ... The thing about being morally opposed to homosexuality, I don't think that's the right standard to apply to anybody. I don't know too many people who think it is a choice. ... You can't say something that isn't a choice [you can't] attach moral or immoral to it. Those people who have that belief must believe that it's a choice that has been made and so forth, and I just think it's the wrong way to look at this."

This is a blatant denial of the Bible's teaching both on homosexuality and morality in general. God's laws against adultery and fornication are in effect regardless of whether the sin is public or private, and unnatural acts between women and women and men and men are clearly labeled a moral perversion in Romans 1:26-29. These acts are called "vile affections" (v. 26), "against nature" (v. 26), "unseemly" (v. 27), and reprobate" (v. 28). When America had laws based upon biblical principles, not only was homosexuality a crime but so was adultery, and rightfully so. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).


Some provoking thoughts are at the website where the above graphic appears:

Questions for Rush Limbaugh
1. Why do Rush Limbaugh and his third wife, Marta Limbaugh live in separate homes in the same city?
2. Why does Rush Limbaugh need a house with 11 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms?
3. Did the 15 bathrooms in his home play a major role in his substantial Weight loss?
4. What does Rush have in common with former Drug Czar William J. Bennett?
5. What does Rush have in common with late: J. Edgar Hoover, the late Roy Cohn and the late Rock Hudson?
6. What role did the narcotic drug Vicodin play in Rush's sudden hearing loss?
7. Why does Rush live in a home with a tax appraised value of greater than $24 millon and his wife live in a home tax appraised at just over $1 million?
8. What is the real reason Rush wanted the job at ESPN? Did locker room privileges have anything to do with his desire for the job?
9. What is the real reason Rush Limbaugh never registered to vote until he was 35 years old?
10. What papers and documents did Rush bring to the draft board so he could avoid military service?
11. How much salary does Marta Limbaugh recieve to act as his wife?

Saturday, August 06, 2005




President Bush just forced John Bolton on us, skirting the Congressional confirmation process by giving him a temporary appointment, like Bill Clinton did with James Hormel, the homosexual.

Of course when Slick pulled that with Hormel, Christian conservatives were up in arms at the sneaky tactic, but somehow now the EXACT SAME tactic is a good move when Bush does it. Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Also, if he is a true conservative, why can't Bush get him confirmed in a Congress with a significant Republican majority?

John Bolton is being cast as some kind of anti-UN patriot. As soon as I learned he was a CFR member, I knew that couldn't be true. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Bush would never nominate someone who is truly anti-UN/NWO. This is (Big) "Brother" Bush at his best, painting a staunch New World Order lackey as an anti-UN zealot. And Conservatives will swallow it readily.

Maybe he once was genuine, but if he was, certainly now he's aboard the Bush train heading America towards the cliff.

Bolton vows 'close partnership' at UN, says it plays 'critical role'

Tue Apr 12, 4:23 AM ET U.S. National - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Under fire from Democratic lawmakers, John Bolton, the controversial nominee to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations, pledged at his confirmation hearing here to strengthen US relations with the world body. "If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the president's vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations," said Bolton, who was nominated last month by President George W. Bush to succeed John Negroponte.

TG: He says he wants to work closely with the UN, not to eradicate the UN.

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams, the hope and aspiration of its original promise," said Bolton, who faced tough questioning from Democrats over his past scornful statements about the world body.

TG: The UN MUST play a critical role, he says? Remember, The UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-American, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

"The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy," Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

TG: We must be committed to the SUCCESS of the UN? Read the above again to see what would be "success" for the UN.

"If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership," he added.

TG: A STRONGER relationship with an anti-American group we should get out of altogether?

Bolton told US lawmakers that he had received words of support for his candidacy from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. "He said, 'get yourself confirmed quickly'," Bolton told the committee summing up a brief recent phone conversation with Annan.

TG: Why would Kofi Annan want Bolton confirmed quickly if he is really anti-UN? If Bush and Kofi both recommend him, he MUST be a New Worlder. How can Republican, conservatives, and Christians be so stupid to ignore that?

Five Republican former US secretaries of state this month lobbied on his behalf, urging the Senate to confirm him. The signatories of that letter were James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz (TG: ALL CFR members). Notably absent was Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who was Bolton's boss. The hearing was briefly interrupted by demonstrators denouncing Bolton's nomination. They were quickly escorted from the hearing room.

Bolton Bared

I've already posted things to prove that Bush's nominee to the UN, John Bolton, is as phony as a $13 bill, despite the media attempts to portray him as an anti-UN, ultra-conservative. However, more pieces of evidence keep surfacing.

The 5-05 John Birch Society Bulletin divulges that Bolton, a CFR one-world gov't group member, gave a speech on October 19th, 2004 entitled, "The Bush Administration's Forward Strategy for Nonproliferation". Apparently Bolton would support continuing the Clinton military cutbacks.

But that's not all. The 5-16-05 New American adds a few other items:

The supposedly pro-American, anti-UN Bolton exposed himself by insisting, "Walking away from the United Nations is not an option."

Why not? If the UN is harmful to the goals of the US, why shouldn't we walk away from it? Isn't that what President Bush is credited with doing to go after Saddam? That means Bolton is actually more pro-UN than Bush. He proves it by saying:

"The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy."

Why should we be committed to the success of a Communist infested, anti-gun, anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-queer, New World Order organization? But Bolton continues:

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise."

Remember, the UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

Bolton wants to "strengthen" the UN and make it "more efficient". A stronger, more efficient organization that opposes everything America has traditionally stood for.

How did this guy ever get a reputation as an anti-UN crusader? Conservatives are so gullible and naive to accept anyone who calls himself a Republican.

Friday, August 05, 2005



While I'm exposing Republican stalwarts who are supposed to be staunch conservatives, I might as well get the third icon:

Jesse Helms has long been one of the steadfast conservative stalwarts in congress. He has consistently scored well into the 90's on the New American ratings.

In his entire career, Jesse has only done one thing that seemed to betray his staunch conservatism. When his state decided to rescind their call for a Constitutional convention, Jesse sped back to North Carolina to
try to talk them out of it. A Con-con cannot be limited, it would open the entire Constitution and let the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank rewrite it. That is disastrous. It is more than curious that Helms would
support such a potentially damaging thing. He could vote conservative 100% of the time and then throw it ALL away if a Con-con went through.

Is the veteran congressman really that ignorant, or is there something more sinister going on? He has long been an outspoken opponent of the UN, and New World Order internationalism. Is it all a ruse to build up a false reputation?

Well, Jesse is finally in a position where he can affect the very internationalist things he has talked about. He is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Has his walk matched his talk?

On January 9th, 2001 Helms endorsed a payment of $585 million in back dues to the UN, even though the UN didn't comply with all the reforms he asked them to in order to receive the money.

His voting record has plummeted in the New American since he took the committee chair. Not only hasn't his walk matched his talk, but now even his talk doesn't match his talk!

At a meeting of the UN Security Council which Jesse addressed, he opined that, "All of us want a more effective United nations ..."

More effective? Like how they bombed Bosnia and disarmed Somalia? More effective "peace keeping" by murder?

8-5-05 Update: And now with the "food for oil scam that enriched UN leaders including Kofi Annan as well as Saddam Hussein, the alleged enemy, and the UN soldier's penchant for rape and child abuse on virtually every mission ("peacekeeping" or piece-keeping?), we certainly don't want a more effective UN.

Helms continued ...

"The American people want the United Nations to serve the purpose for which it was designed."

Do they? The UN was founded almost exclusively by Communists who desire world dominance. That's the purpose for which it was designed. The UN wants to take away most of the rights we enjoy as Americans. They are for total disarmament (except for the UN Force and police). They are pro-abortion (including forced abortions), pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, and even for children's rights. They are anti-Christianity and would take away the rights we enjoy to a speedy public trial, representation, jury, and the right to face our accusers. Do the American people really want that?

Helms worried that if the UN didn't make the compromises asked in exchange for the money, "it would mark the beginning of the end for U.S. support for the United Nation. And I don't want that to happen."

Why not Jesse? You said you wanted to get us out of the UN for all these years, and now that you're in a position to do so, you do a turnaround that would impress Michael Jordan.

Two months after the speech to the Security Council, he invited them to visit the U.S. Senate where he reiterated the "hope that we can work together to build a more effective United Nations."

The last thing we need is a more effective United Nations.



Since I already exposed one Republican icon (Rush Limbaugh), I might as well hit the other one too.

Before I cook Reagan's goose I should say that I voted for him both times, so I was fooled by his words myself. I was never more proud (using the dictionary definition of proud, not the Bible definition) to be an American than when Reagan was making a speech. I wanted so bad for him to be the real thing. But wanting it did not make it so.

Main source: The Insiders Architects of the New World Order by John McManus 1996.

To begin with, Ronald Reagan absolutely was not ignorant of the New World Order cabals. When campaigning, he criticized Jimmy Carter because "19 key members of the Administration are or have been members of the Trilateral Commission." (and he named them all). [2-8-80 NY Times]

The Trilateral Commission is mostly the elite members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). They are the two most prolific New World Order groups, though the Bilderburger group is catching up (and also has mostly the same members).

Reagan's report also noted that "all of these people come out of an INTERNATIONAL economic industrial organization with a pattern of thinking on WORLD affairs." and said that their influence led to a "softening" of our nation's defense capability.

During the primaries, his campaign in Florida even used the slogan, "The same people who gave you Jimmy Carter now want to give you George Bush." (Both Trilateralists and CFR members).

So what did Reagan do when it came to naming his own Vice-Presidential candidate? He chose George Bush! - a member of BOTH the CFR and the Trilateral Commission!

Being concerned that the Trilateral Commission would weaken our defense, who did Reagan choose as Secretary of Defense? Trilateral Commission member Caspar Weinberger!

He then continued to name 257 CFR members to government posts. That includes Secretary of the Treasury, Donald Regan who had donated the personal legal maximum $1000 - to Jimmy Carter!

For his second term he added more CFR members for a total of 313.

It was not ignorance - it was intent!

Reagan's campaign manager was CFR member William Casey who was known for tax-financed trade with communist nations and favoring US policies leading to interdependence on other nations.

READ MY LIPS (Guess where Bush learned it from?)


"Raising taxes won't balance the budget. It will encourage more government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production and destroy future jobs. So I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of the American taxpayers. I will seek no tax increases this year.


Reagan signed the largest tax hike in US history - a whopping $227 billion, five year deal. More than Michael Jordan's last contract.

Several years later he rolled back a portion of this huge increase and got a reputation as a great tax-cutter. Good work, if you can get it.


Reagan talked like a conservative and governed like a liberal not only as president, but he had done the same thing as governor of California - only we ignored it.

He converted the state income tax into one of the most progressive in the nation, introduced withholding, raised sales taxes, and sharply increased business taxes. Welfare expenditures increased 61% during his reign.

Let's not forget that the Federal debt grew more under Reagan than under any other president. Also, remember that it was Reagan who reinstituted recognition of the Vatican as a state and sent an ambassador there. Iran-Contragate was another scandal. What were we doing selling weapons to Iran, no matter who got the profits?

His every move was controlled by an astrologer (said to be Nancy's astrologer, but she controlled Ronnie).

I wish it wasn't true, but Reagan was just another one of the phony New World order puppets. The exchange first made famous in the Bentson-Quayle debate should go: "I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And, Mr. Reagan..., you're no Ronald Reagan!"



I'll throw a few posts about some old favorites up before I hit the current administration.

Now we will expose one of the slimiest lizards of them all - Newt Gingrich.

Newt for over 30 years has been a Tofflerian New Age Futurist, lamenting that avoiding the Tofflerian "Third Wave" philosophy has kept our politics trapped. Toffler wrote, in the book Gingrich wrote the foreword to, "The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be radically changed ... the system of government created by the Founding Fathers ... now must, in it's turn, DIE and be REPLACED."

Gingrich is also a member of the elite New World Order gang, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He supported NWO endeavors like NAFTA, GATT, WTO, NATO, UN, et al. He is a longtime member of the ultra-leftist NAACP and said he would have to "offend some conservatives" with differing views in that area.

Newtie has a militant lesbian sister, Candace. (If you see a photo of the two together, Candace is the masculine looking one.) No wonder he had been so supportive of the QUEERS over the years. Newtie has voted to give AIDS infested fairies hiring preference due to their "disability". He also campaigned for Congressthing Steve Gunderson, and praised him for having the "courage" to be a "gay Republican".

Gingrich has garnered only a 60% conservative rating since 1992. That means 40% of the time he votes UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and LEFTIST. He had only one good term. Without that aberration he is hard pressed to pass the break-even mark, meaning he votes HALF-LIBERAL (no matter what he SAYS - we Bible believers should know more than any that a person's talk is often not his walk). One session he was only 6 points higher than registered SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders of Vermont, but he was 40-50 points below any reasonable conservative.

Newt is primarily responsible for the compromise of the 1992 & 1996 wave of conservatives elected to Congress (opposite of pro-gress). They were elected on a philosophy of downsizing gov't, less spending, less taxing, less intrusion. Newt used his power as Majority leader to force them into lock-step with his big-gov't agenda. Only a few remained firm, and they are left on the outside of Gingrich's "Big Tent" (where the circus clowns are).

Let's look at Gingrich's voting record sine 1992:

102nd Congress:

* HR 2929 Newt voted to allow the federal gov't to swallow up over 8 million acres of California to be added to their protected list. (Ah, he did work with ALGORE on Future environmental committee years ago, now his true colors show).

* HR 456 increased YOUR contribution to the UN Peacekeeping FORCES by $270 million.

* HR 4704 Gingrich voted to use your money to bail out Savings and Loans that made bad loans to deadbeat countries. Of course knowing that you and I would have to pay up any failed loans encouraged the S&L's to make such stupid giveaways.

* HR 4547 Not content to waste your money here, Newt sent almost $15 billion more to Russia (they were still the Soviet Union at the time).

* Gingrich voted for the general Foreign Aid Bill every time it came up, sending your money abroad, against the Constitution, even though we are over $5 trillion in debt.

103rd Congress:

* HR 873 Another bill for Big Brother to gobble up property.

* HR 64 would have stopped tax increases. Gingrich voted it down, of course.

* HR 208 gave the Communist Tienneman Square slaughterers "Most Favored Nation" status. To make sure he supported it again in HR 373.

* HR 3450 NAFTA gave unelected foreigners control over American trade.

* HR 218 would've cut Federal spending. Newt trashed it. After all, it's not his money - it's yours.

* HR 4426 More money going to Russia.

* HR 4606 Newt voted to spend your money to unconstitutionally subsidize PBS, despite the fact that they are raking in billion$ from Sesame Street, stupid tickle dolls, and other merchandice. PBS grosses more than the National Hockey League. Yet Newtie sent our money to PBS.

* And four more foreign spending bills. This is the session that Newt racked up his top score of 78%. He needed to put on more of a conservative image because this was the session that passed the destructive NAFTA. Although, he still voted liberal about one out of every four times.

104th Congress. Now, as Speaker of the House, Gingrich only votes for those things he deems vitally important. This will show what is near and dear to his heart.:

* HR 5110 GATT/WTO Global NAFTA! The most important agenda of the New World Order in history!

* HR 2 Gingrich voted to give Clinton the unconstitutional ability to write legislation with a line-item veto. Who's side is he on? (If you don't know by now, you need a steady diet of lime jello so you'll at least register brain waves on an EEG!)

* HR 273 Gingrich voted to allow term-limits (huh? He's still in office, he must not have really meant it - just a political ploy). While sounding good, term limits create a perpetual lame-duck Congress who are no longer accountable to voters for their treasonous activities. It also steals our right to choose whoever we want at election time. If we want to keep Ron Paul in office, we couldn't under term-limits.

* HR 1868 So strong is his lust for our money, Gingrich would not even support a 1% tax cut.

* Two more Foreign aid bills.

105th Congress:

Newt hasn't voted as much in the current session. He has only a 57% rating currently.

I am missing the issue that has his negative votes for the current session. My record show he has voted twice in the 105th, both positive. That means he had to go 2-good/3-bad in the missing portion.

This should forever dispel any notion that Newt Gingrich has anything in common with an American, much less a conservative.

Thursday, August 04, 2005


I hate exposing phoney-baloney ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

Okay, okay, I lied, I like exposing phoney-baloney ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

Okay, I lied again, I LOVE exposing phoney-baloney ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

Today's false god to be knocked off his pedestal is the self-proclaimed "Doctor of Democracy" himself, Rush Limbaugh. Rush is a sacred-cow of the right-wing, and those who don't want to know the TRUTH will wail and whine like a baby who lost his pacifier. But the facts show that Limbaugh is another false CON-servative, despite his widely-heard rhetoric.

Start with his title.


America was founded as a Constitutional Republic (Remember the pledge? "... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ...". Art. 4 Sec. 4 of the Constitution "guarantees to every State a Republican form of gov't")

Democracy is mob rule, a Republic respects the unalienable rights of individuals no matter what the majority wants. The L. A. riots were a good example of Democracy in action. The masses imposed their majority will to overturn a just decision derived by due process.

A casual listen to one of his shows reveals that Rush uses a fair amount of profanity, sometimes discusses indecent topics, and includes a good deal of suggestive innuendo. He did an interview with "Playboy Magazine", that surely put pornography into the hands of people who would not otherwise have so polluted themselves.


I first began to wonder about Rush when I noticed how he assailed any true Constitutional conservative and supported were all "moderate" and liberal Republicans. I've even heard Limbaugh heap praises on Janet RENO, complimenting the way she handled the Waco massacre. Reno has been exposed as a repeat drunk driver and lesbian by Attorney Jack Thompson. She was responsible for the slaughter of the Branch-Davidian children with fire and tanks. Rush also had his TV crowd chant the name of Koresh as the one to blame for the massacre.

I began to wonder how Limbaugh got all the prime footage for his show, that other conservatives would not be given access to. It's as if he's one of the liberal newsmedia/Hollywood elite. Rush does have some unusually curious insider connections, some to so-called conservatives, some to open liberals (similar to white witchcraft vs. black witchcraft).

His TV producer was Roger Ailes, an insider who (mis)handled Bush's losing campaign.

Rush made a guest appearance on "Hearts Afire" a show produced by liberal bosom-buddy of Hillary, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason.

Limbaugh's wedding was performed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and attended by a small handful of intimates. Among them were Mary Matalin, who led Bush's campaign losers, and her husband James Carville, who managed Bill Clinton's victory. Really strange bedfellows.


In an appearance on Phil Donahue, Rush stuck his foot in his mouth and blatantly contradicted himself. When asked by a lady what he would do if he had a young daughter pregnant from being raped, Rush retorted, "Her's what I would do: If it were my wife, if it were my daughter. In the case of rape, leave it totally up to her." Phil and the crowd went justifiably wild (for a change) at the blatant double-speak. Rush tried to cover his tracks by saying he was trying to answer as a liberal would. I admit he is doing a good job of impersonating a liberal.


Very telling is Limbaugh's willful ignorance of the New World Order. He will hang up on anyone who even wispers of the CFR, TC, EC, or UN. He supported NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and all the NWO creations. He talks about "having the courage to believe the truth" while having the courage of a scarecrow when it comes to the NWO.


A real indication that Rush is bought and paid-for by the NWO was the Mexican Peso bailout. Rush originally took the sound conservative stance that it was pouring good money down a rathole that we have no business wasting.

Then Rush got a spanking from one of the biggest-guns the NWO could sic on him - Head-Fed Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Chairman). Shortly thereafter, Limbaugh announced on his show that he had gotten a "education" from the CFR bigwig and now saw the "necessity" for supporting the bailout.

Subsequent events vindicated the original conservative position, but that was of no consequence. For a big man, Limbaugh performed flips and contortions that would impress an Olympic gymnast.

That's not all - Greenspan was put up to correcting Rush by homosexual-tolerator, Tofflerian Constitutional rejector, CFR comrade Newt Gingrich.

That's not the end of the story - Limbaugh outright denied that the call from Greenspan took place to columnist Robert Novak. When his LIE was exposed, Rush claimed he LIED about the "off the record" confab "as a man of honor".

What other LIES has Limbaugh spewed "as a man of honor"? When did LYING become honorable?


Is it coincidence that Limbaugh's pounding rock radio theme is from a group called "The PRETENDERS"?!?

Rush Limbaugh may indeed be "The MOST DANGEROUS Man in AMERICA", but not for the reasons commonly espoused. Instead he is lulling conservatives into stealthily accepting the New World Order. I haven't heard him much lately (I can't stomach PHONIES for very long), but I bet he rarely sings the accolades of Congressman Ron Paul, who consistently votes in accordance with the constitution, as EVERY congressman should. EACH of them took an oath to uphold the constitution. If they vote unconstitutionally they are frauds and liars.