Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $14,158
Woo hoo!! And the first 15% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Moseley

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Hillary's email scandal should end her run

    08/21/2015 9:17:10 PM PDT · 1 of 42
  • Obama, Congress sued over Iran deal [Larry Klayman Lawsuit vs. Unconstitutional Ratification Law]

    07/23/2015 2:00:05 PM PDT · 22 of 25
    Moseley to Ancesthntr

    Well, a sad commentary on our alleged Republicans in Washington,

    the vote for the INARA bill was 98-1 in favor in the US Senate

    and 400-0 as part of other items on the suspense or consent calendar.

    So the only person who voted against it I think was Senator Tom Cotton.

    Do you know him? Let me know!

  • Obama, Congress sued over Iran deal [Larry Klayman Lawsuit vs. Unconstitutional Ratification Law]

    07/23/2015 12:48:52 PM PDT · 3 of 25
    Moseley to Moseley

    THE HILL writes: “However, the definition of a treaty is tricky, and presidents have tended to have the power to declare whether an agreement is a formal treaty or not. Lawmakers have insisted that the passage of the Iran review bill actually gave them leverage in the White House’s negotiations”

    However, Congress has the “necessary and proper” clause for implementing the explicit powers under the Constitution.

    Congress could have simply passed a law DEFINING what is a treaty within the meaning of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2,

    and thereby FORCE US Senate ratification of any international deal.

  • Obama, Congress sued over Iran deal [Larry Klayman Lawsuit vs. Unconstitutional Ratification Law]

    07/23/2015 12:47:23 PM PDT · 1 of 25
  • Donald Trump vs. Smoot-Hawley's Ghost [Protectionism Fear Mongering Cripples GOP]

    07/23/2015 6:02:37 AM PDT · 1 of 7
  • INVASION USA: San Francisco Murder proves Sheriff Joe's amnesty challenge

    07/12/2015 8:45:41 AM PDT · 1 of 5
  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/11/2015 9:51:09 AM PDT · 92 of 93
    Moseley to ConstantSkeptic

    Furthermore, recessive genes — like Tay-Sachs Disease — will show a distinct pattern of skipping generations.

    We see no such pattern with homosexuality.

    We do not see a concentration of homosexuality in a family line.

    There may be a greater acceptance of homosexuality in certain families, due to having homosexuals in that family. So we may see slightly elevated examples of REPORTED homosexuality in certain families.

    But we do not see either generation skipping patterns of recessive genes (and necessary, unavoidable if there are recessive genes) or concentration of homosexuality in family lines.

    Tay-Sachs Disease is expressed and manifest when the genes passed on to a particular baby from NEITHER parent contain the enyzyme necessary to remove fatty acid build up in the nerves and brain cells.

    This is a recessive genetic pattern.

    But, once again, homosexual activists (who are mostly NOT homosexual themselves) do not understand science, genetics, or evolution or what they are talking about.

    A recessive gene will still be concentrated in a particular family line and will show up in a generation-skipping pattern that WE DO NOT SEE with homosexuality.

    What we do see is genetically identical twins in which one genetically identical twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual.

    Homosexuality is developmental, not genetic.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/11/2015 9:38:37 AM PDT · 91 of 93
    Moseley to Albion Wilde
    Apparently a lot of gays and lesbians haven't followed your abstract rules.

    The abstract rules are the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution requires that homosexuality must be extinct by now -- if homosexuality is genetically based.


    Homosexuality is NOT genetically based.

    Homosexuality is uniform -- at a very, very low frequency -- throughout time, throughout geographic regions, throughout all ethnic groups...

    ... because it is development, not genetic.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/11/2015 9:34:45 AM PDT · 90 of 93
    Moseley to ConstantSkeptic
    Children with the inherited disease of Tay-Sachs die before puberty.

    Some do. Not all.

    Like homosexuals, they have fewer children than people without Tay-Sachs disease. (Actually, they have no children.) So why hasn't that gene died out?

    Well, then, evolution is false, isn't it? The very concept -- the definition -- of evolution as an explanation of both the origin of life and the development of life forms is that adaptive genes will prevail and maladaptive genes die out.

    If you don't have that, you don't have evolution. Period.

    If maladapative genes do not die out, then evolution is false. Correct?

    So, to start with, we agree that evolution is absolutely false and is a hoax perpetrated upon mankind. Agreed?


    1) Tay-Sachs Disease -- unlike homosexuality -- shows a distinct geographic distribution. "The most striking disparate pattern was the geographic distribution of the two primary Tay-Sachs disease mutations, with the first being more common in central Europe (and likely older) and the second being exclusive to eastern Europe (primarily Lithuania and Russia) (and likely much younger). "

    That is, a genetic mutation ORIGINATES at a particular place and time. It does not fall off the sky.

    For a variation to have a genetic basis it must * S T A R T * somewhere. This is another respect in which liberal activists are ignorant of silence and ignorant of evolution.

    With Tay-Sachs disease, it is concentrated in a specific geographic region of the Earth (or at least the populations from that region.

    If homosexuality had a genetic basis, it would similarly be concentrated in the region of the Earth where the genetic anomaly originated.

    2) Similarly, Tay-Sachs Disease appears concentrated among Ashkenazi Jews.

    So the ethnic group in which it first originated still shows the high concentration of the genetic anomaly in the group where it started.

    By contrast, we see no such concentration of homosexuality in either one ethnic group nor one region of the planet geographically.

    3) The analysis of Ty-Sachs Disease also shows distinct CHANGES about 500 years ago and 1100 years ago.

    We see alterations in the genetic distribution and frequency of Ty-Sachs Disease, even just 500 years ago.

    By contrast, we see no such variation over time with homosexuality, because it is a developmental disorder, with no genetic basis.

    4) Tay Sachs Disease is "extremely rare"

    5) "Getting genetic counseling is highly recommended for Tay-Sachs patients who are planning to get married or considering becoming parent."

    People do have children even though they are Tay-Sachs patients.

    6) "Tay-Sachs is a serious condition that can be diagnosed in people of all ages."

    7) "baby, inherits two copies of genes, one from each parent. When both of these are defective genes, they lead to the mutation which causes Tay-Sachs disease. So, mutations in the HEXA gene cause Tay-Sachs disease. The mutated gens carried by both parents show no signs or symptoms of the disease. This is why commonly parents have no idea that their baby may inherit them and consequently develop this deadly disease."

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:38:13 AM PDT · 85 of 93
    Moseley to IamConservative
    There was a family in my hometown that had a set of identical twin boys. These boys were raised from birth in a Christian home. Mother and Father are still married to this day. The family went to the same church as my family and I was around these twin boys frequently. It was apparent from my earliest awareness that one of the boys was a boy in every sense I was and the other was quite effeminate. In addition to effeminate behaviors, he had physical features that were more feminine like musculature, facial bones, etc. Long story short, this experience has led me to believe there is something genetic or gestational that leads to homosexuality. Guess no one knows for sure, thus the ongoing debate.

    If they were identical twins, then they had exactly the same genetic DNA.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:36:17 AM PDT · 84 of 93
    Moseley to ConstantSkeptic
    People with genetic defects fail to procreate all the time and yet those defects continue for thousands of years.

    You fail to understand what we are talking about.

    Homosexuality is -- by definition -- a reduced desire or no desire for reproductive / heterosexual sex.

    By definition, homosexuals will have fewer children than heterosexuals. By definition, the genes of homosexuals will die out. That's simple evolution.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:31:22 AM PDT · 83 of 93
    Moseley to moehoward
    ""I’m of the opinion that gestational conditions contribute." Epigenetic….a plausible theory. Assumedly some lesser affected version of what causes hermaphrodites and overly feminine boys or masculine girls.

    But then homosexuality must be classified as an abnormality, right? It is a disease or deformity, is it not?

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:29:19 AM PDT · 82 of 93
    Moseley to The Toll
    Genetically it’s going to be the same as all other Mental Illness.

    No, it is not, because sexuality is the engine of reproduction.

    Sexuality is different because it is the mechanism by which genes are passed on from one generation to the next.

    A reduced desire for reproductive (heterosexual) sex directly results in the extinction of any genetic basis for that reduced desire.
  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:27:22 AM PDT · 81 of 93
    Moseley to Ransomed
    There are genetic predispositions to mental illness. So if homosexual tendencies are some form of mental illness, wouldn’t it be possible that there are genetic predispositions to homosexuality? Just like genetic reasons for an increased risk of schizophrenia?

    No, because sexuality directly affects reproduction.

    Reproduction is the means by which genetic predispositions last longer than 1 generation. Otherwise, the genetic predisposition dies out when the carrier dies.

    Sexuality is not some random factor like eye color.

    Sexuality is the one and only engine by which genes are passed on from parents to children.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/10/2015 9:24:50 AM PDT · 80 of 93
    Moseley to Albion Wilde
    "Because of the social pressure to get married to the opposite sex mentioned above.

    But regardless of being married, the definition of homosexuality is reduced or no interest in sex with the opposite sex -- reproductive sex.

    Without the social pressure to get married, a homosexual gene would be extinct in only 1, 2, or 3 generations.

    With the social pressure to get married in a straight marriage,

    1) Homosexuality would ONLY persist in societies that had the social pressure to marry.

    2) Societies where there was no social pressure would have no homosexuals today. All homosexuals would be extinct in those cultures.

    3) In societies with a social pressure to marry, anyone carrying a homosexuality gene would have FEWER children than normal -- in periods of history of high mortality rate for infants, children, and adults -- and homosexuality would be extinct in maybe 500 to 1,000 years.

    Since we hear references to homosexuality 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, today there should be no homosexuals anywhere on planet Earth... if there were a genetic basis for it.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 8:50:14 AM PDT · 41 of 93
    Moseley to paristexas
    Seems like it, but it might be more complex than a single gene.

    But what you are missing, what everyone is missing, is that a genetic basis for homosexuality has to START somewhere. Heterosexuality is not just a random trait, but the core engine of reproduction, without which no human race exists. A variation on heterosexuality has to ARISE somehow. So there has to be something that creates an alternate version: A single genetic mutation.

    There are bad things that haven’t died out—like juvenile diabetes.

    But sexuality is central to reproduction, and therefore to the continuation of the trait. Again, this is what people are missing. Sexuality is not just red hair versus blonde hair. Sexuality is the core engine by which a genetic trait is passed on to a subsequent generation. Without sexuality, the trait dies out when the carrier of the gene dies.

    Furthermore, the definition of homosexuality is a reduced or no desire to have reproductive sex with a member of the opposite sex. By definition, homosexuality is a lowered or no desire to engage in sex that passes the person's genes on to a subsequent generation.

    It is possible for a carrier of juvenile diabetes to have lots of children. It is not possible for homosexuals to have children at the same rate as the surrounding population, because by definition homosexuality is a sharply reduced interest in sex with the opposite sex.

    Even homosexuals married, due to social pressure, to a member of the opposite sex will lack interest -- by definition -- in sexual activity likely to pass their genes on to children.

    And there are lots of homosexual animals out there, too.

    I think those reports are about as likely to be true as man-made global warming.

    Also, we need to distinguish indiscriminate stupidity from an orientation toward the same sex.

    A dog will hump your leg. That doesn't mean that dogs are attracted to human legs rather than to female dogs. It just means they will hump anything.
  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 8:41:19 AM PDT · 39 of 93
    Moseley to yefragetuwrabrumuy

    This is interesting, but your analysis sort of depends upon the idea that homosexuals are exclusively males attracted to other males.

    But there are lesbians. Homosexuality exists among both males and females. So your proposed biological basis for homosexuality doesn’t fit the observed existence of both male and female homosexuals.

    Furthermore, how do we avoid calling this a “dysfunction” — i.e,. an abnormality or deformity or disease?

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 8:35:51 AM PDT · 37 of 93
    Moseley to RandomJoe

    But homosexuality is not exclusively male.

    Is there one homosexuality gene for male homosexuals and another homosexuality gene for lesbians?

    And how did both come into being?

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 7:20:53 AM PDT · 23 of 93
    Moseley to Pearls Before Swine
    Myself, I’m of the part-genetic, part cultural persuasion.

    This is of course a possibility. But if there were a genetic contribution to homosexuality, why is it not EXTINCT by now? By definition homosexuality reduces the rate at which homosexuals have children.

    Yes, homosexuals can and do and have over human history had children. But by definition anyone carrying a homosexual predisposition as a gene would have LOWER rates of reproduction than heterosexuals.

    That's by definition. That's why the activists can't wrap their head around. Homosexuality, by definition and by its nature, results in a reduced frequency of children. No, not zero. But at a distinctly lower frequency than heterosexuals.

    So you have the unavoidable result that any genetic basis for homosexuality would already be extinct by now. (We have historical references going back at least 3,000 years. So 3,000 years is enough time for extinction of the gene.)

    I’d like to point out that a lot of research has gone into trying to find genes that code for intelligence, with minimal success—it seems to be due to the outcome of the combination of a number of genes.

    But again you are missing the fact that intelligence is essential for human life. It is part of the standard, original pattern. Without intelligence, there is no human being. So having the genetic basis spread throughout our entire genetic code is reasonable.

    By contrast, there must be a CHANGE from the standard of heterosexuality to create a genetic basis for homosexuality. There had to be a genetic mutation at one particular place on Earth in one particular ethnic group at one particular point in time.

    It isn’t inconceivable that a predisposition to homosexuality might be genetic, although there’s clearly a lot of acculturation going on in most cases (otherwise, why all the promotion?).

    But if there is a genetic predisposition, why isn't the genetic basis extinct already?

    That's the problem no one is thinking about.

    A genetic predisposition has to BEGIN somewhere in human evolution. It did not just fall out of the clear blue sky.

    And the genetic predisposition would have to be passed on to children or it would die out.

  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 7:11:49 AM PDT · 21 of 93
    Moseley to Clara Lou
    "I’m of the opinion that gestational conditions contribute."

    This is possible, but then you have to classify homosexuality as either a disease or abnormality. If there is a normal development in gestation but some babies don't develop normally, how can you avoid calling homosexuality a disease or disability?

    Clearly, homosexuality is not a "flip the switch" choice. It is far more complex than that. Every aspect of heterosexual sex is very complex. Why do some guys like brunettes and others prefer blondes? How do those preferences develop? Even heterosexuality is very complex.
  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 6:50:54 AM PDT · 3 of 93
    Moseley to Moseley

    Sorry, never got around to posting this at FR originally, but it is now in the news again.

    Also, a homosexuality gene would be concentrated in one geographic location on Earth and in the ethnic group where it started. Of course that is radically in conflict with the observable evidence. We don’t observe any such concentration.

    We would also see no homosexuality at all in cultures where people were not pressured into a heterosexual marriage. Ironically, in cultures where people were free to follow their desires, homosexuals would have no offspring and the genetic line would die out almost immediately. But even when homosexuals were pressured into a heterosexual marriage they would – by definition – engage in a lower frequency of heterosexual sex.

    The human body is pervasively designed around sexual reproduction. Homosexual orientation is not an alternative like blue versus brown eyes. Just switching one genetic DNA sequence with another would not create a homosexual. The human design is pervasively heterosexual.


  • Homosexuality Has No Genetic Cause

    07/09/2015 6:47:42 AM PDT · 1 of 93
    However, a gene that dramatically reduces one’s likelihood of having childhood would quickly become extinct. The gene would die out whether you believe in evolution as The Origin of Species (Darwin’s book) or whether you believe in simple mathematics.

    Homosexual activists totally ignore the role that sexuality plays in having children and the fact that one’s genes can only be passed on if they have children. A gene determining homosexuality is fundamentally different from hair color, eye color, height, skin color, etc. If there were a gene that reduced fertility by 80% to 90%, that ancestral line would quickly die out.

    According to the Hypothesis of Evolution, every detail of a living specimen must have started somewhere at some time. Life began as a single-cell organism, they say. But genetic mutation (errors) created variations. Helpful mutations survived and persisted because the variation was ‘better’ than the previous model. Unhelpful mutations cause that line to die out.

    Advocates of the idea that homosexuals are just born that way cannot wrap their head around the teaching of evolution (which they subscribe to) that every detail about human beings had to start somewhere. They debate this topic as if a homosexual gene came out of nowhere. (Note that most ‘homosexual activists’ are themselves not homosexual, but simply enemies of Christianity hijacking the conversation.)

    Under Evolution, if a person is actually “born” homosexual, there was a point in time in one particular geographic location on Earth when that genetic mutation first occurred in one particular individual human. There was a point in time when everyone else on Earth had the normal heterosexual plan in their DNA. But there was one (1) (count them, one) individual with a genetic mutation causing them to desire the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

  • ACLU sued by Larry Klayman And NSA/CIA Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery For Ethical Violations

    07/02/2015 6:21:51 PM PDT · 1 of 12
  • Conservative group says Donald Trump's 'childish attack' shows 'what a joke his candidacy is'

    06/21/2015 5:48:47 PM PDT · 67 of 68
    Moseley to dragnet2
    You have every right to go to thread and not comment about the topic.

    Well thank you very much. That is very gracious of you. ☺

    But what I think about it is:

    --- Trump's tone, aggressiveness, and 'anger' is one of the MAIN reasons people are flocking to him.

    What professional politicos believe is bad is exactly what the American people are starving for.

    Remember that Ronald Reagan was falling behind George H.W. Smoosh in the New Hampshire primary until

    Ronald Reagan's

    ANGRY RANT !!!!!!!!!!

    at the New Hampshire GOP Presidential debate in 1980.

    It was Ronald Reagan's

    ANGRY RANT !!!!!!!

    that won Reagan the nomination.

    Why? Because the American people want someone with some fire in their belly who will FIGHT -- and fight for THEM.

    -- So the fact that Trump was intemperate in the eyes of some people is not a negative in the eyes of the people who matter... the voters.

    -- And what was the conflict about?

    Well, Trump takes very, very conservative positions. The speech Trump gave last week is the most conservative speech we have heard since Ronald Reagan, including anything we have heard from Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc., etc.

    Trump proposed policies and actions more conservative than Rush Limbaugh would have dared to suggest.

    But.... IS HE LYING???

    Trump took liberal positions in the past.

    So which is the real Donald Trump?

    -- But what "I think about this" is that the same criticism is true of ALL OF THE CANDIDATES.

    They all lie.

    Rick Perry, according to the Texas Tea Party's leaders, worked hard to give government benefits to illegal aliens and created magnets for illegal aliens in Texas.

    Rick Perry made a big show of sending the National Guard to the border -- then tied their hands to prevent the National Guard from actually doing anything.

    -- So "what I think about this" is show me a candidate who has not taken liberal positions in the past, show me a candidate who can be trusted to keep his conservative promises, and I will wholeheartedly support that guy or gal.

    But so far that leaves only you and me, and I'm not so sure about you.

    (Just riffing off the old joke, nothing personal, I don't know you of course.)

    I actually met Doug Sachtlebein, the press secretary who attacked Donald Trump.

    Doug briefly was press secretary for Christine O'Donnell's 2010 U.S. Senate campaign.

    He is a great guy according to my brief encounters with him.

    But even Christine O'Donnell (and I) used to be pro-abortion at one time.

    So how do you judge any of the candidates, that is by what yardstick?

  • Conservative group says Donald Trump's 'childish attack' shows 'what a joke his candidacy is'

    06/21/2015 1:45:35 PM PDT · 59 of 68
    Moseley to dragnet2
    You read #14, who do you think was the angry party here?

    Who had the motive?

    Who had the motive to go to start sending out press releases meant to mock and discredit?

    What if I really don't care about the narrow issue of a spat between Donald Trump and the Club for Growth? Who says that I have to look at the issues with Trump's candidacy only in terms of that one issue?

    The only real controversy is that Trump has in the past taken liberal positions were today he takes positions far more conservative than any other candidate except Ted Cruz.

    But that's pretty much the same as all the other Republican Presidential candidates, except perhaps Ted Cruz.

    Nearly all the Republican candidates have pandered to the liberal news media in the past by taking liberal positions and then taken conservative positions as the conservative movement has grown stronger.

    So I would be more worried about Donald Trump's changing positions if that were actually a difference between him and the other GOP candidates.
  • Conservative group says Donald Trump's 'childish attack' shows 'what a joke his candidacy is'

    06/21/2015 5:28:00 AM PDT · 20 of 68
    Moseley to South40
    "It is both amazing and sad that a liberal can wrap himself in the American flag, say what they want to hear, and conservatives will believe he is one of them."

    Which of the Republican Presidential candidates are you referring to?

    Oh, ALL of them. I see.

    When we can't really trust any of them, at least the most we can get is someone who is driving the debate far to the right.

    If Trump is telling conservatives what they want to hear, why is he the only one?

  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 8:43:34 PM PDT · 24 of 28
    Moseley to RansomOttawa
    Do you think musicians are somehow immune? A handful of apostates don't discredit any of the others who remain faithful.

    Who is discrediting Christian musicians who remain faithful?
  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:51:26 PM PDT · 21 of 28
    Moseley to Moseley

    If there is a “Jesus in Disguise” He is disguised as a believer being tortured and persecuted....

    If Jesus is in Disguise He is not handing out cups of coffee,

    He is warning people that they are in danger of going to hell.

    How do we know? Because that is what Jesus actually did.

    How many times did Jesus preach that people would go to hell if they did not repent?

    Compared with:

    How many blankets did Jesus hand out to people?

  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:46:26 PM PDT · 20 of 28
    Moseley to Some Fat Guy in L.A. apostate guy who no longer plays with Newsboys negates the entire credibility of the entire genre?

    Are you saying you cannot discern between a good Christian song and a bad one?

    You are just assuming that if they call it Christian, you will swallow what they are selling hook, line, and sinker, without discernment?

  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:44:30 PM PDT · 19 of 28
    Moseley to joethedrummer
    George Perdakis never even understood Christianity. I just read one of his interviews online.

    And that is the saddest thing of all. Our response should not be "bad Perdikis" ... but "HOW TRAGIC" that someone could come that close to the Christian community AND NEVER LEARN what Christianity means and what Christianity is about and who Jesus is.

    How tragic that Perdikis will never know Jesus or go to heaven (unless something changes in the future) because NO ONE EVER TOLD HIM CLEARLY what Christianity actually is.

    And so if we continue to allow Christian songs that tell us that Christianity is just MEALS ON WHEELS and making people smile....

    WON'T THERE BE MILLIONS OF PERDIKIS's WHO ALMOST KNEW what Christianity is -- but not quite enough?

    As long as the Christian airwaves are filled with songs about "Jesus in Disguise" == meals on wheels, say something nice to someone, pat someone on the back,

    won't there be MILLIONS of Perdikis lined up at the gates of heaven demanding to know....


    How could you pay for fast food for the people in line in the drive-through AND NEVER TELL ANYONE WHO JESUS REALLY IS?
  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:39:11 PM PDT · 18 of 28
    Moseley to marron
    From “We Believe” by News Boys

    But he didn't believe, did he?

    Do you think someone who does not believe in God can lead others in worshipping God?

    Other than that, I fail to see what your point is.

    Perdikis and Lambeis tell us that not 1 in 10 of those in the Christian music scene actually believe what they are singing.
  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:36:56 PM PDT · 17 of 28
    Moseley to RansomOttawa
    Then how about this Christian musician who just renounced Christ in June 2014?

    Perdikis is not the first high-profile Christian rocker to reject Christ. Heavy metal Christian rock star Tim Lambesis last June told the world he's an atheist. Not only that, he told the Alternative Press he figures only 1 in 10 Christian bands he toured with were actually Christians.

    "I actually wasn't the first guy in As I Lay Dying to stop being a Christian," Lambesis said. "In fact, I think I was the third. The two who remained kind of stopped talking about it, and then I'm pretty sure they dropped it too. We talked about whether to keep taking money from the 'Christian market.'"

    NOTE: From Lambeis' experience in the world of Christian music, he says NOT 1 IN 10 CHRISTIAN MUSICIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY.

    They were just in it for the money, Lambeis says.

  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 7:31:32 PM PDT · 16 of 28
    Moseley to Some Fat Guy in L.A. apostate guy who no longer plays with Newsboys negates the entire credibility of the entire genre?

    Who says we are talking about the entire genre? Where are you getting that from?

    I have Christian music playing most of the day as I work at home or drive around. There are many powerful Christian songs, modern ones.

    But one criteria for a life-giving Christian song is that the writer and the performers (a) actually BELIEVE in God, (b) actually have met God and know God, and (c) actually have experienced God so they can speak out of their relationship with God.

    But there is a philosophy being spread throughout the Christian world changing the meaning of Christianity from being focused on God to being focused on ourselves -- from our new Quasi-Pope to Joel Osteen to the anti-Christian teaching of "seeker friendly" churches to Christian radio stations.

    A Christian radio station whose biggest challenge to Christians is to encourage obesity and heart disease by paying for the fast food of people behind them in line in the drive through, they really have no idea what Christianity is about.

    Are you sure that you know Christ?

    No one who has encountered God and who knows Jesus would put the emphasis on our own human efforts -- which are pathetic in comparison.

    If you had a futuristic flying car would you ride a bicycle (other than for exercise)?

    Christian music by those who have never met Jesus unavoidably focuses on human effort, not on God, because they have never met God.

  • The Blasphemy Awards for Music (for June 2015)

    06/20/2015 12:43:53 PM PDT · 1 of 28
  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    06/20/2015 12:35:40 PM PDT · 272 of 274
    Moseley to Political Junkie Too
    Because the states will ignore them and hold their convention anyway.

    Who says the States get a convention at all? You are only assuming that?

    The only role for the States is to APPLY. After that, they're out of the picture.

    So if Congress calls a convention consisting of 1,000 law professors, and NONE from the States, when do the States get to say anything at all?

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    06/20/2015 12:30:51 PM PDT · 271 of 274
    Moseley to Hostage
    Is that why the Article V movement is growing at breakneck speed since Mark Levin’s speech before ALEC last December 2014?

    Well, it is not. The movement is stalled.

    But the reason it grows is because people want easy answers to complex problems that don't require any actual effort. Who wouldn't want a simple, easy, cheap, quick answer to difficult problems?

    Congress has merely an administrative secretarial role and nothing more.

    Says who? Where is that written? Can you show us where in the US Constitution it says that?

    If Congress tries to impede or stop the States from amending the US Constitution as above, they will fail and turn the people against them even more.

    So let's consider an example:

    The State legislatures all submit applications for an Article V Convention strictly limited to the purpose of considering your Amendment 28, and specifying that the delegates shall be 2 delegates sent from each state with each State having 1 vote, and the procedures run according to Roberts rules of Order.

    Congress, then, issues a call for a convention under Article V --
    1) with no limitation on the subject matter or topics
    2) appointing as the delegates 1,000 law professors from the nation's top law schools -- and no one else.
    3) issuing a byzantine set of rules for the convention that are unfamiliar.

    You say they can't do that it's illegal.

    Oh, yeah? What do you do now?

    WHAT can you do to stop them? What can you do to prevent this?

    Answer: Nothing

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    06/20/2015 12:18:09 PM PDT · 270 of 274
    Moseley to Hostage
    The power of the media is in decline. MSNBC, CNN and others have had declining viewership year over year for many many years so much so that their financiers and investors are moving to find another formula that will stop them from going under. You are living in a view bubble of many years back if you think the media is all powerful.

    That is completely untrue. There are now many alternative sources of news. But those alternatives all require INITIATIVE by the consumer.

    Traditional media is passive and requires nothing of the news consumer but to sit back, allow the liberal news media to open up their brain and pour in swill.

    Alternative sources of media have no effect unless the person SEEKS OUT what the alternative news sources is saying.

    And even then, most social media, websites, etc. are still overwhelmingly liberal. The IT community is as liberal or more liberal than the old traditional news media.

    So there has been absolutely no change with the liberal news media's ability to manipulate the vast numbers of low information voters.

    Conservatives have alternative news sources they can take the initiative to seek out.

    But the same low information voters will just float with the flotsam on the river and get the same manipulation and propaganda as always.

    ============================================= Take for example CNN’s Candy Crowley. Watch here how Ted Cruz eviscerates her while keeping a class act composure:

    Yes, take that. How many people saw it?

    Back in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's there were plenty of times that William Buckley, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan as far back as the 1960's EVISCERTED liberals.

    That goes back to the 1960's. Did that end the liberal news media's dominance of the country's politics? No.

    ======================================================= It is a fact that 66 of 99 state legislative bodies are controlled by conservatives who have decades of experience with the duplicity of the EPA, gun control initiatives, same-sex marriage advocates, progressive groups funded by Bloomberg, Soros and the like.

    ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Not a single one is controlled by conservatives. Those legislative bodies are controlled by RINO, Rockefeller Republican establishment insiders beholden to liberal business interests.

    Look at Indiana which jettisoned religious liberty within a week of when a media firestorm began. It didn't even take them a week to cave to public pressure.

    The State legislatures would fold like wet tacos under the media firestorm.

  • Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio admits setting private investigator on judge’s wife

  • Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio admits setting private investigator on judge’s wife

    05/15/2015 8:47:37 PM PDT · 35 of 36
    Moseley to Oliviaforever
    If you or I hired a private investigator to spy on a federal judge’s wife, we would go to prison

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:42:54 PM PDT · 261 of 274
    Moseley to Political Junkie Too
    Because the states will ignore them and hold their convention anyway. Or their first order of business will be to set aside Congressional restraints and vote in their own rules.

    What makes you think the states will be represented at the Article V convention?

    There is nothing in Article V that requires Congress to call a convention in which the states are represented.

    Under Article V, the States APPLY, and the CONGRESS calls a convention. There is no further role for the States after they APPLY for the Congress to call a convention.

    You are merely HOPING that the convention will consist of representatives of the States.

    What is to stop Congress from calling a convention of the leaders of all the liberal public policy organizations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, etc.?

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:38:11 PM PDT · 260 of 274
    Moseley to Hostage
    It is also possible that Soros can have his agents work an amendment proposal to announcement but it will need 34 states to deem it as an amendment and 38 states to approve/ratify it as part of the Constitution.

    And the mainstream media will work over time manipulating low information voters and putting pressure on the state legislators, won't they? Anyone who stands in the way of the "Warm Puppies and Rainbow Amendment of 2017" will be crucified in the news media and targeted for defeat in the next election.

    You really can't foresee that? What do you think the news media will be doing? What do you think all the interest groups will be doing?
  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:35:24 PM PDT · 259 of 274
    Moseley to Jacquerie
    I'm a bit unsure as to what you mean. Once the convention meets, the subject matter for each delegation is limited by their state statute.

    But the COS movement REJECTS those safeguards as being unnecessary. I interviewed Roman Buhler almost 2 years ago on these proposals. The COS movement has voted DOWN those safeguards repeatedly.

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:31:38 PM PDT · 257 of 274
    Moseley to Jacquerie
    In post #144 I provided a link to the Indiana statute regarding its delegation to an amendments convention. Delegates will do the will of their legislatures.

    How do you know a convention for amending the constitution under Article V will be made up of representatives from the States? Where does it say that in the US Constitution?

    What if there isn't any delegation from Indiana or any other State? What if Congress appoints a group of Members of Congress and a couple US Supreme Court Judges to rewrite the US Constitution?
  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:28:13 PM PDT · 256 of 274
    Moseley to Jacquerie
    Delegates will serve their states.

    How do you know that the delegates to an Article V convention will represent the states? Or be chosen by the states? Or be apportioned among the states?

    The only thing that Article V says is that the states APPLY for a convention, and then CONGRESS calls the convention.

    Nowhere does the Constitution say that the States have to be represented AT ALL in the convention.

    Where does the Constitution say that?

    Congress could call a convention made up of law school academics to rewrite the US Constitution. Show me where the Constitution says otherwise.

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:22:51 PM PDT · 255 of 274
    Moseley to Political Junkie Too
    Others have said that Congress has a limited administrative-only role in an Article V proposing convention process. You make it sound as if Congress has supreme authority over the process. Article V says that Congress' only role is to call the convention when enough states apply, and to select the method of state ratification of proposed amendments. Everything else in between, is for the convention itself to decide.

    Says who? Here is the acid test: What happens when it is NOT done that way? To whom will you go to complain? What will you do to sop it? Who will enforce the vain and empty hopes you cling to?

    If the DC insiders don't obey the clear words of the Constitution now, what makes you think they will follow your empty wishes that are not written down anywhere?

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:20:07 PM PDT · 254 of 274
    Moseley to Publius
    I run across this opinion a lot at this site, and it is only logical for me to assume that you believe the American people are no longer capable of self-government. If that is so, I see only three possible solutions, and they only open up more questions.

    How about a 4th option? Education?

    Our country is in the state it is in because we stopped believing in America and teaching and preserving self-government.

    The reason the USA is no longer capable of self-government is because we stopped teaching and maintaining the ideals of our country's founding.

    The only solution is to correct that mistake.

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:16:13 PM PDT · 253 of 274
    Moseley to Publius
    "Coleman v. Miller was a case that involved shenanigans in the Kansas Legislature.


    In that 1939 decision, the Supreme Court made certain statements that were not relevant to the case itself. In the business of the law, the term for that is dictum; the plural is dicta. Anything that is dictum is not law, but simply an opinion of the judge who wrote the decision."

    But those statements are the law, because they accurately describe what Article V of the US Constitution actually says.

    So if the issue were raised again, the statements in Coleman v. Miller -- even if they are dicta -- would be consulted. A Court would then look at Article V and see "Yup, that's correct." That's because that is what Article V of the US Constitution actually says.

    To use the argument that a statement is dicta, you have to have something else to hang your hat on. The COS movement has absolutely nothing but empty hope to base its beliefs on.

    Article V is explicit. The States apply. CONGRESS calls the convention. So Congress controls how the convention is set up. There is no other possibility.

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:08:17 PM PDT · 252 of 274
    Moseley to Jacquerie
    We have never had a ‘runaway’ electoral college because electors are statutorily responsible to their states. For the very same reason there is no reason to fear a runaway amendments convention.

    But delegates to an amendments convention are NOT statutorily responsible to their states nor responsible to the states in any other way. Indeed, there is no reason to expect that the delegates to an Article V convention will even come from the States. Under the language of Article V, Congress could call a convention of academics from Harvard Law School or from Members of Congress.

    Attempts by Roman Buhler to FIRST pass laws in at least 14 States and amend the state constitutions to protect against unfaithful delegates or runaway amendments have been consistently REJECTED by the COS movement as unnecessary.

  • To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

    05/15/2015 8:02:57 PM PDT · 251 of 274
    Moseley to Publius
    The Birch Society and Eagle Forum folks have their hearts in the right place, but they don't know what they're talking about. I'll grant that there are a lot of unknowns because there has never been an Amendments Convention under the Constitution.

    That IS what they are talking about. That's precisely the issue.

    But the people behind the COS movement have done their homework.

    No, they have not. The COS movement is dominated by the arrogance of Mike Farris and is simply a triumph of hope over experience. The COS movement has simply strung together a bunch of hopes and confuse their hopes with reality.

    They know about the Dillon and Coleman decisions, and how Congress will try to take control of the process using them as a pretext. They also know that if Congress tried that, it would violate the original intent of the Framers when they wrote Article V

    But isn't that the wole problem they are trying to solve? Congress IS violating the original intent of the Framers. That's the problem. So, yes, of course Congress would violate the original intent of the Framers. That's what Congress has been doing for close to 170 years. So what makes you think they are going to stop now?

  • 50 Shades of Wimpy Men: Feminism Leave Women Longing for More

    02/17/2015 9:07:44 PM PST · 66 of 72
    Moseley to Billthedrill

    “because so many of them are little closet masochists to begin with who don’t want equality nearly so much as to be able to complain about not having it.” — That’s a brilliant insight.