Keep sharing good news without ads.
#NoDespair2020
Alright, so as you kind of navigate the waters over the next few months, you know, it's an election year, November, we're going to vote for president and all that kind of stuff. But as you're kind of reviewing the Gospel Coalition articles, you know, the Twitter feeds of your evangelical heroes, conference speakers and leaders, what you need to understand is that most Big Eva leaders have one goal in mind, one goal only.
They want to make sure that they do everything within their power to make sure that Donald Trump does not get reelected for president. It doesn't matter who gets elected as long as it's not Donald J. Trump.
Now, I support Donald J. Trump's presidency, and that's not something I've hidden. I think I made a video announcing that I was probably going to support him in the future. But the reality is that Big Eva is totally committed at this point.
They are totally committed to the idea that Donald Trump can't be elected again because they think that their Christian witness depends on it. These people are twisted, and no question about it, they're twisted.
But they're also kind of sissies. And so very few of them will actually tell you to do anything tangible about it. Very few of them will say, you should vote Democrat. But make no mistake, they do want you to vote Democrat because that's the easiest way forward.
That's the most likely way that Donald Trump doesn't get elected. If you don't vote or if you vote for Joe Jorgensen or some other loser, that's probably not going to stop Donald Trump from getting elected.
It actually has to be a pro-Biden vote in order to have the best chance of stopping Donald Trump. Now, I don't think there is a chance of stopping Donald Trump. I think Donald Trump is going to get reelected.
That being said, Big Eva wants more than anything in the world for Donald Trump to not get elected. But they're too sissy to tell you to vote for Joe Biden. And so what most of Big Eva will be busy doing is busy trying to soothe your conscience.
Trying to make it seem like it's totally legitimate to vote for a Democrat. And they have this idea that if they can somehow make it legitimate to vote for a Democrat, then a lot of people will just do it naturally.
They'll get the message, so to speak. That's their roundabout kind of sissy, limp-wristed, milquetoast. There's nothing more Big Eva than this. Wanting you to vote for Joe Biden, but not having enough cojones to say vote for Joe Biden.
And so what you're going to see is tweet after tweet, think piece after think piece, video after video of people with the one goal in mind. To make it easier on your conscience to vote for a Democrat.
Now, why should somebody not vote Democrat? Well, I mean, you could count the ways. There's so many reasons. But the most objectionable one, the most obvious one, is the fact that not only do Democrats support abortion as a right.
But they actually think it's a moral good. Like abortion to them is the best thing since sliced bread. And so for them, this is part and parcel of being a Democrat. Like you have to sign on this dotted line in order to get a chance to have a chance of being promoted and elected by Democratic Party officials.
You must think that killing children, killing babies, infants, mind you. Killing infants is a moral good. Not only should it be legal, but it should be celebrated. That is one of the most objectionable, ethically, morally repugnant, just despicable positions I could imagine anyone having at any time.
It is the worst. And so if you had no other reason to not vote Democrat, that should be enough. Right? That should obviously be enough. But there's plenty of other reasons. Like in almost every area of the Democratic Party platform, there are morally objectionable things to it.
They don't get hardly anything right. And the things they do get right, they're just these moral platitudes that are obviously true that everyone agrees with. Those are the only things they do get right.
And some of the other things they get right, they get right by accident. Like I think the drug war should be ended. But not for the reasons that they think the drug war should be ended. But, you know, so they get some things right by accident.
But most of everything is just they're upside down. It's not even that they're just like a little bit off. They're like totally contrary to what any normal Christian should believe. And so there's a lot of heavy lifting that needs to get done by Big Eva to make it okay to vote Democrat.
And so they'll try many different methods. Some of them are more ham-fisted and idiotic. And some of them are more nuanced and intelligent. And so here's an example of the idiotic low IQ version. That's from none other than my friend Kyle J. Howard here.
Here's what he says. First he has the little shout emoji thing. Which whenever somebody uses that, you can be sure that whatever follows is going to be gold. And here's Kyle James Howard and his wisdom.
He says, if merely being anti-abortion is your faith-informed political conviction and party criteria, and not seeking to promote comprehensive human flourishing through socioeconomic policies, your faith is likely guided more by republicanism and self-righteousness than biblical revelation.
Now there's this idea that Democrats are good on comprehensive socioeconomic human flourishing policies. And that's just simply not true. All of their ideas when it comes to socioeconomic policies are all antichrist.
They're all evil. They all result in less human flourishing. This is not debatable. This is obvious. And anyone who understands the Bible even at a very basic level could see this. Kyle J. Howard, though, is a complete idiot.
He's a professional idiot, meaning that he makes money by saying things that are obviously idiotic. But you can see how what he's trying to do here is say, well, abortion is just one issue of many. And if the socioeconomic policies are better over here, then it might be legitimate to, you know, maybe weigh abortion against the socioeconomic policies.
And even if he was right and the socioeconomic policies of Democrats were better, it still wouldn't counterbalance the idea that they think it's a good thing to murder infants, right? Only a monster would be like, oh, yeah, you know, better socioeconomic policies, murdering infants.
Let's just weigh it out here. Only an idiot would think that or a monster, which Kyle J. Howard might be both. So there you go. That's a stupid way to try to do this. But there are more, you know, intelligent ways to do this.
Jonathan Lehman does the same thing. I mean, there's just no question about it. He is trying to soothe your conscience and make it OK to vote Democrat. What he really wants you to do is to vote Democrat.
That's what he wants. But he can't say he can't figure out a way to say that and still come across as an authoritative figure in evangelicalism. It's very risky for him to come out and say, vote Joe Biden.
He might do that. Who knows? Some of these people might just go all out. Most of them I don't think will. Most of them will do stuff like this. And so here's Tom Buck questioning Jonathan Lehman. And Jonathan Lehman's got a very typical kind of biggie of a non-response response.
But he gets called on this almost immediately. And it was a glorious thing to witness. Here's what Tom Buck's question is. He says in the Nine Marks book explaining, quote, tactics for overcoming abortion.
It says some, quote, insist on adding a whole life consideration to their opposing abortion. It sounds like a defense to vote for pro-abortion candidates who value other life issues. Am I reading it right?
Jonathan Lehman does respond to this, which is very unusual, but it's good that he did. He said, nope, you're not reading it right. Blessings. And so the idea here is this is very typical Big Eva stuff.
You're never reading me right. And it's like you guys, like you guys got to start taking ownership of what you say and what you don't say. And this kind of weasel tactic of like kind of we always allowing yourself some wiggle room to always deny that you're not saying what you're obviously saying.
It's getting very tiresome and it's getting very transparent. Most of the people that have a fair mind on their shoulders can see you guys do this constantly. Tim Keller did this today as he responded to John Harris on Twitter, which is another very unusual event, which we will go into into a further video.
But Jonathan Lehman says you're not reading it right. But this is amazing because Jacob Brunton almost immediately, God bless you, Jacob, almost immediately found a five minute clip. And we'll listen to a little bit of it.
A five minute clip of Jonathan Lehman and Mark Deaver arguing exactly that, that voting for pro abortion candidates should be allowable based on other considerations like socioeconomic policies that promote human flourishing.
OK, so let's just accept the argument for a second that the Democrats' socioeconomic policies are good, right? They're not evil antichrist policies, which they definitely are. But let's just pretend this is living a fantasy for a minute and say that they were great on socioeconomic policies.
Right. Would that cancel out the complete insanity of the position that killing babies is a moral good? It is something that should be protected by the Constitution. It is something that should be promoted and paid for by the government.
Would that cancel it out? So killing babies, is it cool to just like weigh those out and decide what's more important to you and that kind of thing? Is that how we do this? I don't think so. But Jonathan Lehman claims he wasn't defending that, but he has clearly defended that before.
And so Tom Buck read him right the entire time. There's no question about it. And Jonathan Lehman is a freaking weasel. Look at him. Look at this weasel. There he is. And he pretended like he wasn't saying what he obviously was saying.
Luckily, the Internet never forgets. Luckily, the Internet never forgets. And so Jacob Brunton here has a section of video that plainly says what Tom Buck said. Hey, are you saying this? Which Jonathan Lehman said, I am not saying this is very, very clever of Jonathan Lehman.
Much more clever than Kyle Howard. But it's the same idea. It's just trying to soothe your conscience here a little bit. Let's listen to this video. Let's see what Jonathan Lehman has to say.
Nostalgia there. Well, I don't have much time left to make people mad. So what about one-issue voting? I think one of the things that most separates white and black Christians in America is one-issue voting.
I think white Christians think this is the only moral way to approach voting.
Yeah, this is a lie. OK, so this is a lie. And I know that Mark Dever is comfortable lying about white Christians and that's fine. Listen, people lie about me all the time. You got to just accept that liars don't lie.
You know what I mean? That's just how it is. But the thing is Christians don't one-issue vote. But the reality is that the one-issue that you're talking about is so objectionable morally, so obviously satanic, so obviously evil that this issue gets brought up a lot.
So it's not like we think, oh, the Democrats are great on economics, but they're just bad on abortion. So I'm going to vote for the non-abortion candidate. No, it's the Democrats are horrible at everything.
And the most obvious example of this, how could your conscience be so seared that you could continue to vote Democrat knowing that this is the satanic, demonic, evil that they promote? It's not one-issue voting.
It's using the one most objectionable issue as a sledgehammer, which we should. I've had it with these soft-peddling Democrats in our midst. I just have had it with these people.
I think they've never thought of any other thing, generally.
We just never thought about anything else.
Listen to these snakes. I think a lot of our African-American brothers and sisters realized like a long time ago that, well, there are going to be a bunch of different issues that are going to be affecting us.
Well, like our African-American brothers, they're like so much smarter than whites because they've done the mental calculus, right? They've done the mental calculus that whites are just incapable of doing, that they understand that there's more than just one issue.
Do you see this slithering snake and his forked tongue? He's just proudly and loudly, and Lenin is just sitting there like, yeah, yeah, okay. This is evil stuff, guys. This is evil stuff. I'm getting heated.
And I'll tell you right now, this is the stuff that we've known for years that gets people just lying about whites all day long. And the thing is, it's not even just whites, right? He's lying about me too, right?
But I guess I fit in the category of whites when you're a freaking critical theorist.
And I can vote for a candidate who I disagree with about some very important issues that I don't really think they're going to get anything done on. But I agree with him on these other issues that I think are going to help a lot of people.
Even if you don't adopt that thought yourself, can you allow space for that in your church? No, we absolutely cannot.
And this is not you see how he puts it on this theoretical? He's not actually filling in the blanks, right? Because in the theoretical, sure, I could disagree with a politician on something and still vote for him in the theoretical.
But when you start to put what is being talked about here? Mark Deaver is talking about sucking the brains out of infants, pulling them limb from limb as they are alive and writhing in pain. He is talking about when a baby is halfway out of his mother, injecting him in the back of the neck and killing him.
It's just another political issue to a snake-like Mark Deaver. Think about how low of an opinion of blacks you must have at this point. How low because he's talking about whites and blacks here. Blacks have been able to do the mental calculus to somehow make that a legitimate thing to vote for a candidate who thinks that.
Yeah, I'm angry. There's no question about this. I'm angry. And here's Mark Deaver. Just he wants to soothe your conscience to vote for these butchers. And the thing is, like, again, this is just living in a pretend universe where the Democrats are actually good on human flourishing and socioeconomic policies, which they are definitively, biblically, by any objective standard, horrible at.
So there are no counterbalancing issues that the Dems are just slightly better at or way better at. Nothing actually in the real world, nothing is actually like this where you can say, well, they're good over here and bad over here.
No, they're just bad across the board. Bad across the board, and Mark Deaver is trying to soothe that conscience. This is much more sophisticated than Kyle Howard. Much more sophisticated as Kyle Howard but just as demonic.
That's right. This is a demonic way to think. This is not a Christian way to think. Because, again, a Christian understands, yeah, sure, I could disagree with Donald Trump on certain things, right? But there are certain things I can't disagree with Donald Trump and still vote for him.
There are certain things I can and there are certain things I can't. Okay? And the idea that abortion is a moral good and that we should be promoting abortion and paying for abortion and doing as much as we can to make sure that this is a fundamental human right to kill your own children, that is one of those things.
That is one of those things.
As a morally legitimate argument and option.
Okay, let's listen to Jonathan Lehman's wisdom because, remember, he wasn't saying what Tom Buck said. He was saying, right? No, no, he wasn't saying that. Blessings! And that's the other thing. He gives you the Christian version of the FU.
Blessings!
This guy's a freaking snake. One-issue voting. And I'm not trying to say one-issue voting is illegitimate. I'm saying I think that's clearly there is one way you can think. It's just one way of many.
I mean, I'm not saying it's wrong, but the blacks are way ahead of us on this. You see what I'm saying? These fence-sitters, man. I've had it with them. I've had it with them. You thought I wasn't nuanced before.
Well, AD has had some thinking. He's done some thinking over his vacation. I'm sick of this stuff.
Your vote and you can sort of champion that. But I think a lot of white evangelicals assume that's the only morally legitimate position.
Notice, every one of these words is wrong. White evangelicals don't do this. This is a fantasy. He's made this up. Everything he's said here so far is wrong. But let's see what wisdom Jonathan Lehman brings to the table.
It would be argued to have moral legitimacy, and I certainly would like to question that.
Yeah, I think one of Satan's greatest successes is dividing majority-minority culture Christians politically in part through that particular issue.
Yeah, that's one of Satan's things. So you see Satan is behind the fact that white Christians think it's illegitimate to vote for a candidate who thinks it's a moral good to murder children. That's Satan who did that, right?
So Christians, you don't want to be on Satan's side, right? So just a little room for nuance to vote for a political candidate that thinks it's a fundamental human right to butcher children if you so see fit.
Like a little nuance here, guys.
Because you have a party on the right who is pro-life, a party on the left who demonstrates at least more overt concern for issues concerning minorities. And so majority-culture Christians gravitate this way, minority-culture Christians gravitate that way.
Satan is psyched over the issue, right? Because he sees division in the church, and we don't trust each other, and you're voting for them. Well, you must not care about justice. I don't even know if you love Jesus, right?
I question your Christianity and just rank division in the church. And again, I think this is where we're at.
Yeah, division is good, though. Division is good unless you're a snake, right? Because we need to see who's who, right? We need to see what's what. The Bible says that some division, it's good. We want to see who is genuine in our midst, right?
And I don't know. Call me a fundie, but I think that if you vote for a candidate who thinks it should be a fundamental human right and, in fact, is something that is good and not something that is shameworthy to butcher children if you see fit, call me a fundie.
But I think that's a sign that you're probably not one of the genuine ones. You're probably not.
I don't know. Call me crazy. You have to allow for Christian freedom and remember Romans 14 and differently calibrated consciences and the fact that we're united around the gospel and not how I work out my decision on who or who not to vote for.
Actually, how you work out your decision on who or who not to is fundamental to how we understand if you're a Christian or not. You know what I mean? Because if you ask me how I decide who to vote for or if to vote or when to vote, I will give you a very straightforward approach.
This is what I look for. This is what the Bible says, and this is what I'm going for, right? But then if you ask somebody else, well, I just think he's going to help blacks and Latinos more. Could anything be more self-centered than that?
Because that's the example that we've just been given. I'm not saying blacks are thinking like this. Jonathan is saying that because he's saying Jonathan and Mark are saying, well, blacks and Latinos, you know, they see these other candidates that are going to do more for them and they're voting for them.
That's actually an unchristian way to go about their thinking. So, like, don't get mad at me. This is what Jonathan Lehman is saying. This is illegitimate for a Christian. Division is good to see who's who.
Who's reasoning like a Christian and who's not. Who's genuine and who's not. I can understand, for instance. I mean, the low opinion of Latinos and blacks that these men have, these two men in particular.
I'm talking about Jonathan Lehman and Mark Deaver. The low expectations, the low opinion they have of our thought process. When I say our, I mean Latinos and blacks. It's disgusting. It's disgusting. These guys are just so wrong about everything.
They're wrong about everything. There's a little red meat for you. You can accuse AD of being a slanderer because I said that Jonathan Lehman is wrong about everything. It's a little fun for you guys.
A person might, I might not agree with it, but I can understand how a person might decide, well, look. I'm pro-life, but, you know, there have been Republican pro-life quote unquote candidates in the White House for the last number of decades.
And yet the laws haven't been overturned. Meanwhile, I think this, let's just say, I'm thinking hypothetically, the welfare policies of these candidates has actually decreased the number of real abortions in such and such a state and actually brought the number of abortions down.
So though they are pro-choice, I think that they've actually helped the abortion issues as opposed to your Republican candidate.
So there he is. So Jonathan Lehman was definitively saying exactly what Tom Buck said he was saying, definitively, because he said it again here. Okay, so this is his belief. And the thing is, like, let's just say he wasn't saying it here, but he believes it.
Still, this is dishonest. Nope, you're not reading it right. Blessings. I mean, this is an FU. This is an FU from Jonathan Lehman. Because what he could have easily said is, I wasn't saying that here, but actually I do believe that's legitimate, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not saying what he has to do, but this is an FU response. This is a Twitter FU. We're not stupid here, you know what I mean? But listen to how he thinks that blacks think. Because remember, we're talking about whites versus blacks here, right?
That's what we're talking about, whites versus blacks. Guys, they think you're stupid. I got nothing more to say. I've got nothing more to say. This is enough for today. I'm heated, man. I'm heated. Because if you want to know if your Big Evo leader or conference speaker hates your guts, find out if they're doing this.
If they're trying to ease your conscience in order to get you to think it as legitimate to vote Democrat. The way the Democratic Party platform is, the way that the Democrats view the issue of baby murdering.
If someone's trying to soften that to such a degree that it actually might be legitimate for you to vote for someone who thinks it's a fundamental human right for you to kill your offspring if you see fit, that person hates you.
You understand what I'm saying? That person hates you and your neighbors. They don't have your best interests in mind. It is illegitimate to vote for a party that one of its fundamental planks is to increase, to fund, to promote killing infants.
I can't think of a more objectionable position than that. And so, look over the next few months. Who's trying to soothe your conscience in that way? Because those people love themselves and their platforms more than they love you.
And more importantly, more than they love Christ. Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. God bless. So when it comes down to it, this is the way the weasel works. The weasel works like this. They're going to key in on the word defense, right?
Because Tom Buck is asking to see if he's defending voting for a pro-abortion candidate who value other life issues. And Jonathan Lehman, in the video, if you said, I might not agree with this thought process, but I could easily affirm this as being legitimately Christian.
And so that's the word, defense. Jonathan Lehman is going to say, I'm not defending it. But he is defending the legitimacy and the moral okayness for a Christian to believe this exact thing. And that's just as bad.
That's weasel-y. That's fence-sitting. That's a snake. And that's exactly what Big Eva wants to do in this political season. They want to soothe your conscience to make it legitimate to vote for butchers.