Even though we all know the Southern Baptist Convention is woke, it seems like every day we see another example of just how pervasive this evil is in these churches. Over the years, we’ve uncovered garbage from SBC pastors like David Platt, Matt Chandler, and many others pushing various forms of critical theory and woke social justice tripe. But most of that simply demonstrates just how feeble-minded and non-thinking most pastors and church leaders who buy into this stuff really are.
However, in the document below, you would not believe the extent to which supposedly Bible-believing congregations are now funding what can only be described as a baptized brand of Marxism.
Over the last several years, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has increasingly embraced woke ideologies, despite many of its leaders continuing to stick their heads in the sand over this. This creeping influence is most brazenly evident in a training manual recently uncovered from the North American Mission Board’s “Send Philly” event in 2019. What’s particularly alarming is that these ideologies are being funded by the tithes and offerings of mostly unknowing churchgoers who are being deliberately lied to—dollars that should go towards spreading the gospel, not social theories.
The “Send Philly” curriculum typifies this new direction. Wrapped in the language of urban ministry and outreach, the content is steeped in concepts drawn straight from Critical Race Theory and social justice narratives. These are ideologies that are in direct conflict with the Bible, focusing on societal structures and collective guilt rather than individual sin and redemption.
One of the central themes of this curriculum is an obsession with the “marginalized.” While the Bible does call Christians to care for the oppressed and the needy, this manual shifts the focus toward a secular understanding of oppression. It categorizes individuals not by their spiritual needs or their common identity in Christ but by their socio-economic status, ethnicity, and other worldly metrics. The document dilutes the message of salvation and individual transformation to a message of social reform and systemic restructuring.
In one section, the material discusses “marginalized peoples” in the context of Matthew 25:31-46, twisting Scripture to support a narrative that prioritizes social identity and earthly justice over spiritual regeneration and heavenly justice. It portrays Jesus not primarily as the Savior from sin but as a social reformer, which is a misrepresentation of His mission and the Gospel.
Worse, this manual ventures into areas like systemic racism, environmental oppression, and modern-day slavery—terms loaded with political connotations and underpinned by a worldview that sees “systemic sin” as the root of all societal evils. The curriculum advocates for a form of activism that aligns more closely with leftist political thought than with pastoral ministry or evangelism.
To see tithes being used for promoting such views is distressing as Christians should see their contributions not as just financial gifts but as offerings to God for the purpose of furthering His kingdom—not for advancing a secular agenda cloaked in Christian rhetoric. The misalignment between the financial stewardship of these resources and the theological direction being pursued raises serious questions about accountability and the future direction of the SBC.
Yet, this is where Southern Baptists continue to spend their hard-earned money. What is the return? Are we winning souls or simply appeasing the culture—the far left pagan culture? The infiltration of woke ideology into the SBC through training programs like “Send Philly” reveals a troubling trend. It’s not just about a theological mission drift but about a fundamental restructuring in how the church understands and carries out its mission.
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) is the liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that is dragging the denomination through the mud. They represent the denominations’ viewpoints to America, and now they want to make it Unconstitutional to quote scripture. The previous President Russell Moore and the current President Brent Leatherwood are mentioned on this blog site and both have led the ERLC to support LGBTQ+ causes. Now Brent Leatherwood and the ERLC want to suppress the quotation of scripture. Surreal. This is one of the plethora of reasons that our church and 3 million Southern Baptists have left the SBC. In Christ, Pastor Steve <><
ERLC Head Lobbies Congress for Unconstitutional Bill That Makes it Illegal to Quote Scripture, “We Are in Full Support…”
We need your support. As big tech continues its crackdown on conservative blogs, our days on these platforms are numbered. Go Ad-Free plus get Exclusive Member-Only content by subscribing to us on Substack!
Yesterday we reported that the U.S. House passed a bill that would challenge the freedom to express certain biblical truths regarding the Jews and their historical actions. The bill, known as the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023” (H.R. 6090), proposes to adopt a definition of antisemitism that potentially categorizes traditional biblical teachings as discriminatory.
Here’s the pertinent text of the bill and the working definition:
Specifically, texts such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, where the Apostle Paul, himself a Jew, states that the Jews “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets,” would be illegal. This biblical fact is not rooted in antisemitism but reflects a historical biblical account, which acknowledges that the Jews were responsible for handing Jesus over to the authorities to carry out his crucifixion.
This portrayal is consistent with John 1, which describes Jesus as coming to his own people who did not accept him. If the Senate passes this bill and it is signed into law, articulating such biblical views would technically be illegal under new guidelines meant to combat supposed “antisemitism.”
And here, we have Brent Leatherwood, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) lobbying on behalf of Southern Baptists for the passage of this bill. It’s actually rather surreal to watch on of the most influential Southern Baptist leaders in history promote such a thing.
Later today in Congress, the Anti -Semitism Awareness Act is expected to pass the U .S. House. We’re in full support of this legislation and we urge the U .S. Senate to take it up not a place where harassment and intimidation and evil will persist.
And so we stand with our friends from Israel. We stand with Jewish citizens here in America. And we want to make sure that we are constantly being a voice for the vulnerable in these types of situations.
Of course, we believe that Israel has a “right to exist,” but we also have the freedom in the United States to say what we want, no matter how offensive it may be to others. It’s called the First Amendment. We literally have a Southern Baptist leader lobbying for anti-First Amendment legislation that would make quoting Scripture under certain circumstances illegal.
The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.
The United Nations will meet in September for the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, as well as the highly-anticipated “Summit of the Future” where nations will sign the so-called “Pact for the Future”. What does this agreement and its policies mean for the future of individual and national sovereignty?
By the end of September, the United Nations member states may vote to radically alter the UN itself, what some are calling UN 2.0, and the very nature of how nation-states make decisions regarding the future of the planet. The UN will convene for the 79th session of the General Assembly in New York City starting on September 10th in New York City. The high-level general debate will begin on the 24th of September.
Although the UNGA is an annual meeting, this year’s gathering will be unique because of the addition of the Summit o the Future, a UN sponsored event taking place in NYC on the 22nd and 23rd of September. The summit has been in the making since at least 2022. It is the latest attempt by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to “rally the troops”, and garner more support for a rapid completion of the Agenda 2030 goals set by the UN in 2015.
In May 2023, Guterres revealed that efforts to complete Agenda 2030, and the corresponding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), were failing. Guterrres warned that only 12 percent of the SDGs were on track to be completed. He said progress on 50 percent of the goals is “weak and insufficient”, while 30 percent of the SDGs have “stalled or gone into reverse”. He predicted that if the current trend holds only 30 percent of nations will accomplish SDG1, focused on poverty, by 2030.
Guterres has called for “greater multilateral support for the UN development system and decisive action at the 2024 Summit of the Future”.
“I urge you to study the report and implement its proposals,” Guterres stated. “This will be a moment of truth, and of reckoning. It must also be a moment of hope – when we unite to turn the tide and kickstart a new drive for SDG achievement.”
Our Common Agenda: The Summit for the Future
In June 2020, as the United Nations marked the 75th Anniversary of the creation of the international body, member states released a declaration that included 12 overarching commitments relating to Agenda 2030 and a call for Secretary-General Guterrres to issue his own set of recommendations for achieving the goals. This declaration included statements like “We will leave no one behind” and “We are determined to implement the 2030 Agenda in full and on time. There is no alternative”.
In September 2021, the Secretary-General responded with his report, Our Common Agenda, which called for accelerating the implementation of the SDGs and the commitments contained in the UN75 Declaration. Our Common Agenda also called for a Summit of the Future to “forge a new global consensus on readying ourselves for a future that is rife with risks but also opportunities”. The UNGA agreed to hold the Summit on September 22nd and 23rd of this year.
The Common Agenda report called for a “renewal of trust and solidarity at all levels – between peoples, countries and generations”. The report also called for a “fundamental rethink” of our political, economic and social systems “so that they deliver more fairly and effectively for everyone”. Finally, the report recommended a “renewal of the multilateral system” and stated that the Summit of the Future would be the “defining moment” to set new agreements for these goals.
The UN website dedicated to The Common Agenda states, “Our Common Agenda is an agenda of action, designed to strengthen and accelerate multilateral agreements – particularly the 2030 Agenda – and make a tangible difference in people’s lives.”
Secretary-General Guterres’ Our Common Agenda report was the direct inspiration for the upcoming Summit for the Future. The Summit will continue the push for nations to “reaffirm existing commitments” to the SDGs and the UN Charter. Member states will be expected to build on the outcomes of the 2023 SDG Summit and “breathe new life into the multilateral system” to accomplish the Agenda 2030.
According to the Summit for the Future website, the summit is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to address gaps in global governance. “Multilateral governance, designed in simpler, slower times, is not adequate to today’s complex, interconnected, rapidly changing world,” the website states.
Additionally, a UN document on the Summit of the Future titled, What Would it Deliver?, discusses the concept of an updated UN, or “UN 2.0”, and what it would be mean for the future.
“‘UN 2.0′ is about upgraded expertise in innovation, data, digital, foresight, and behavioural science to enhance UN System results, help build similar Member State expertise, and accelerate shared progress towards the SDGs.”
The document also calls for “A Global Financial System That Works For All”.
“A transformed international financial architecture is fit for purpose, more inclusive, just, representative, effective, and resilient, responsive to the world today rather than as it looked following the Second World War. This architecture invests up-front in SDGs, climate action, and future generations.”
These calls mirror similar ones made during the “Summit for a New Global Financing Pact” held in Paris, France in June 2023. The Summit, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, welcomed 50 heads of state, representatives of NGOs and civil society organizations to discuss the effort to reset the international financial system as part of the continued push towards the 2030 Agenda and Net Zero goals.
The French government stated that the objective of the gathering was to “build a new contract between [the global] North and South” which will better equip the nations to fight poverty and climate change. The summit was attended by US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In addition to heads of state, the summit was organized with support from the Open Society Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others.
One of the other stated goals of the 2023 summit was to transform the entire international financial system by adapting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to modern challenges. These goals correspond with recent statements made by Guterres where he called for a “new Bretton Woods moment”, referencing the infamous 1944 international agreement that established the IMF, and adopted rules for governing monetary relations among independent states, including requiring each nation to guarantee convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars.
For those reading between the lines and seeing through the buzzwords, the language of these documents rings of globalist-speak intended to override or outlaw national and individual sovereignty in favor of world government. A new monetary system, a renewal of the multilateral system – all of this is designed to sell the public on the idea that the UN (or some new international body) is needed to take humanity safely into the future. In truth, we are likely to see major steps towards the creation of a one-world government at the Summit for the Future.
For example, the Summit of the Future website notes that it will conclude with a “Pact for the Future” which will be endorsed by heads of state at the Summit. The UN says the outcome of the Pact will be “a world – and an international system – that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now”. The Pact for the Future is likely to be another piece of the shift towards a world governed by unelected internationalist politicians.
The Pact for the Future
The UN says the aim of the Summit for the Future is to “accelerate efforts to meet our existing international commitments” and “take concrete steps to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities”. With these goals in mind, the UN is planning to negotiate and endorse an “action-oriented outcome document” known as the Pact for the Future. The document is already being discussed at UN meetings, with final negotiations and signing of the agreement to take place in September at the Summit.
In January, Germany and Namibia, co-facilitators of the Summit, announced the release of the “zero draft” of the Pact for the Future. The proposals mostly repeat what is found in the UN 75th anniversary document, and the Our Common Agenda report. The document makes it clear that the member states “re-affirm the importance of the multilateral system” with the UN at the center. The zero-draft also reiterates the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration to “leave no one behind”.
“We will act with urgency to realize the vision of the 2030 Agenda, including through the agreements contained in this Pact, a surge in financing for the Sustainable Development Goals, and additional steps to ensure sustainable financing in line with our commitments under the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development,” the draft of the Pact for the Future reads.
In terms of “reinvigorating the multilateral system”, the draft says the UN will “commit to a vision of a multilateral system” that is “inclusive to allow for a diverse range of actors beyond States”. This statement appears to be a reference to the belief that individual nation-states are no longer capable of tackling international crises, and, thus, the world must adapt to new forms of governance.
The zero-draft also mentions the need for an “Emergency Platform” that would be activated in the event of “such a shock that has an impact on multiple regions of the world” and, according to the UN, requires a “coherent, coordinated and multidimensional response”.
The draft also claims that any Emergency Platform would “not be a standing institution or body”. The UN also claims the “decision to convene an Emergency Platform” would “fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States”.
The discussion of an emergency platform plays right into calls for the declaration of a planetary emergency.
The Planetary Emergency
Over the last couple years, the phrase “planetary emergency” has become increasingly used by the United Nations and aligned organizations to describe their belief that the planet is passing from various states of crisis to emergencies from which humanity might not return, unless drastic action is taken. We have even seen the release of opinion pieces calling for “a formal declaration of a ‘planetary emergency’ by the UN General Assembly at the Summit of the Future in September and the activation of an ’emergency platform'”.
The calls for declaration of an emergency have also reached the White House. Last week, Bloomberg reported the Biden administration is considering declaring a climate emergency.
“White House officials have renewed discussions about potentially declaring a national climate emergency, an unprecedented step that could unlock federal powers to stifle oil development,” Bloomberg wrote.
White House spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez told Bloomberg that Biden “has treated the climate crisis as an emergency since day one”.
As Bloomberg notes, if Biden does declare an emergency, he would not be the first US president to do so. In fact, past presidents have declared national emergencies for various reasons. However, calls for a so-called climate-emergency declaration are unprecedented.
In recent years, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has even used the phrase and warned that the world was approaching one or more “tipping points”, or emergencies, which must be addressed by the UN member states. In November 2020, he told the World Forum for Democracy, “Alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, we face a triple planetary emergency–a climate crisis, a nature crisis and a pollution crisis.”
“We also confront a planetary emergency – including accelerating climate change, growing pollution and collapsing biodiversity – threatening the environment on which everyone’s future depends. And we are witnessing an alarming spread of hatred and discrimination,” Guterres said in 2021.
The United Nations is not the only organization promoting the idea of declaring a planetary emergency. UN-affiliated organizations like the Climate Governance Commission (CGC) are also getting in on the fun.
In September 2023, during climate week and the UN SDG Summit, the CGC released a statement titled “Charting a Safe Path for a Workable Future”. It states:
“The world faces a deepening planetary emergency-and is on a reckless path toward catastrophic climate change-having already over-stepped six of nine scientifically-identified planetary boundaries. A continued failure to address the underlying causes of this emergency – such as fossil fuel-based economies, resource waste/ overconsumption, and the destruction of nature – will have further devastating effects for all of humanity, triggering potentially irreversible tipping points, with dangerous consequences for planetary stability, both social and ecological. A system-wide approach to solving the climate crisis is required now, ensuring reliable climate and planetary boundary governance for the Earth as a whole.”
The CGC claims it is focused on “developing, proposing, and building partnerships” which promote “feasible, high-impact global governance solutions for urgent and effective climate action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C or less”. The CGC is itself a part of the Global Governance Forum.
The Climate Governance Commission was convened by Maja Groff, a member of the Global Governance Forum, with extensive connections to technocratic, including the Rockefeller Foundation, who have helped finance the work of the CGC. This makes perfect sense when you recall that in 2023 the Rockefeller Foundation made it clear that the climate agenda was their new focus.
The CGC September 2023 statement also continues the call for expanding concepts of global governance. “New perspectives on global governance – deploying new levels of collective wisdom and political courage – are required to tackle current existential planetary risks,” it states.
The statement also includes the usual climate alarmism and doomsday predictions. The CGC says the world may have only six or seven years to change course to avoid disaster.
The Climate Governance Commission followed up this statement with their report, Governing Our Planetary Emergency. The report was released during an online event on November 28, 2023, just before the opening of the UN Climate Change Conference COP28. In this report, the CGC continues their recommendation for updating our ideas on governance.
“A basic premise of the Climate Governance Commission is that new perspectives on global governance– deploying new levels of collective wisdom and political courage–are required to tackle current existential planetary risks,” the report states. “Such efforts should complement and enhance ongoing intergovernmental negotiations. By prioritizing fundamental global collective action innovations, we can protect our common home for present and future generations in a just, equitable, and sustainable manner.”
It is this writer’s belief that the “new levels” of “political courage” needed to implement “new perspectives on global governance” are referring to the fact that empowering the UN (or another international body) will be extremely unpopular with the domestic populations of many of the UN member states, including the United States.
For more evidence that the CGC and some at the UN are interested in moving past national sovereignty, and towards a world governed by global organizations, I refer you to statements made by scientist Johan Rockström, a member of the CGC and advocate of the planetary emergency paradigm, during the November 2023 online event.
“The fact that we are in the anthropocene, actually puts into question the nation-state as the only unit of decision making to solve the problems we have facing us,” Rockström stated.
In the section labeled “Near-Term International Governance Innovations” the CGC again says the UN should declare a planetary emergency.
“We therefore urge the UN General Assembly, at the 2024 Summit of the Future, to declare a planetary emergency, recognizing that the triple planetary crisis poses a grave risk to global stability and security, among others, to be reinforced in similar statements by bodies and agencies of the UN system, regional bodies, and national and local governments.”
They also echo calls for the “Emergency Platform” referenced by the zero draft of the Pact of the Future. The report recommends convening a “Planetary Emergency Platform” to address the rapidly accelerating consequences of climate change.
“Such a defragmentation and acceleration Platform may be necessary to ensure the imperative 50% global emission reductions by 2030,” the CGC report states.
In a section titled “Addressing Individual Responsibility for Environmental Crimes: Including Ecocide as a Crime Under the International Criminal Court”, the document states that “individuals involved in policies and/or activities that cause severe damage to the environment need to be held accountable regardless of whether they undertake these actions as government officials, legislators, military leaders, CEOs of corporations, or in other roles”.
In a section titled “Next Generation Working Proposals” we also see a recommendation to “Establish An International Court for the Environment”.
Is it possible to see the world’s governments sign a document that empowers an international court to punish individuals who are deemed polluters or accused of damaging the environment?
Planetary Boundaries
“The current crossing of planetary boundaries has already caused intense suffering and heightened inequality,” the CGC’s September 2023 statement reads.
The Pact for the Future and the CGC’s report Governing Our Planetary Emergency are both built on the concept of planetary boundaries, first popularized by Johan Rockström, former director for the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He first developed the idea with a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists in 2009.
Rockström is an internationally recognized scientist on global sustainability issues and led the development of the Planetary Boundaries framework for human development. He is also a leading scientist on water resources, with more than 25 years experience in applied water research in tropical regions. Additionally, he is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum.
Rockström’s concept presents a set of nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. According to this theory, the Earth’s Planetary Boundaries indicate the “maximum human-induced disruption” each environmental area can sustain before the “Earth system becomes unstable, potentially leading to irreversible changes and cascading effects in multiple domains”.
Essentially, Rockström argues that these boundaries should be used as guides to design future governance models, as well as governmental regulation of corporations, industry, and human life in general. It is yet another technocratic program claiming that it can create a utopia by triggering an emergency platform once humanity crosses these alleged boundaries.
As with calls for a planetary emergency, in recent years support for the concept of planetary boundaries has grown among academia, science, and some politicians. Along with the growth of Rockstrom’s concept, we have also witnessed broad support for global governance.
In 2023, an international group of 22 “experts” from a range of fields emphasized the importance of establishing a “planetary commons” in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The group argued that this step is essential for strengthening global governance to “protect the functions of Earth’s biophysical systems in ways that ensure planetary resilience and justice for present and future generations”.
The article introduces the concept of “planetary commons” as a framework to align global law and governance with the science of the “Earth system”. The so-called experts write that there is “presently no effective governance system in place” to properly deal with the crises facing humanity. The paper laments that nations have developed their own policies for climate change which are “often misaligned with other nations and the global goal of a sustainable Earth”. The report ends by calling for the development of “collective global-scale solutions that transcend national boundaries”.
All Roads Lead to The Club of Rome and Eugenics
We can trace the call for a Planetary Emergency back to the infamous but obscure group, the Club of Rome. The CGC’s November 2023 report even notes that the belief in a “polycrisis”, or multiple, simultaneous crises, is “recognized in the work of the Club of Rome Planetary Emergency Project”. This reference to the Club of Rome reveals yet another reason the public ought to be concerned with the push for a planetary emergency and claims of crossing planetary boundaries
The Club of Rome has been calling for declaring a Planetary Emergency since at least 2019 with the publication of their “Planetary Emergency Plan”. The report would be updated in August 2020, after the beginning of COVID1984. The COR’s Emergency Plan is described as a “roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity”.
As with the zero-draft of the Pact for the Future and the Climate Governance Commission’s 2023 report, the Club of Rome calls on nations to declare a Planetary Emergency and adopt a Planetary Emergency Plan. They say such a plan should be “founded on the urgent need to at least halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030”.
These extreme calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon, have lead some researchers to conclude that the guiding philosophy of the Club of Rome is actually a belief in eugenics, masked by a faux environmental agenda. An understanding of the organization’s history may provide some clues.
The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 and played a major role in the development of the more well-known World Economic Forum (WEF). On the 50th anniversary of the WEF, the organization looked at their history, and noted that at the 1973 meeting, Aurelio Peccei, the Italian industrialist who co-founded the Club of Rome with Alexander King, presented a speech on his now-infamous book “The Limits to Growth”. Alexander King was also responsible for a follow-up report released in 1991 titled “The First Global Revolution”. This controversial report includes a section called “The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man”, which contains this often-quoted section:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Some readers have interpreted this statement to mean that the Club of Rome was acknowledging that they would use the fear of pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine to unite humanity behind the idea that humanity is the problem. The Club of Rome and their supporters claim this passage is taken out of context and simply represents their leadership recognizing geopolitical issues which would soon befall humanity.
Further evidence of the eugenics worldview can be found in the words of Dennis Meadows, a World Economic Forum member and co-architect of the 1972 “Limits to Growth” report. In a February 2022 interview, Meadows detailed his hopes for a “clean” purging of the global population to sustainable levels:
I hope this occurs in a civilized approach. I imply in a non-public approach. A peaceable approach, however, peace does not imply everyone seems to be joyful. But it surely does imply that the street has been resolved by different means, not violence, which is what I imply. So there are 7 billion folks proper now; however, we’re going to have 1 billion folks. We now have to return down. I hope it occurs slowly and evenly.”
Eugenicists like Meadows and his buddies at the Club of Rome hide their anti-human ideology behind calls for population control. Their talk of “fighting climate change” by limiting human movement or controlling our diets and other personal habits often mask their true desire to reduce and control the human population.
It is imperative that people of the world open their eyes and ears to realize the true intentions of the Technocrats who want to rule our lives. As Swedish researcher Jacob Nordangård recently told me in a recent interview, the UN (and their partners in the WEF, Club of Rome, Global Governance Commission, etc.) are working on declaring a “planetary emergency” which will allow them to activate various agreements–the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Financing Pact of the Future, and the Pact of the Future–and complete their plans for world government.
The only thing standing in the way of the complete takeover of a free humanity are the free hearts and minds of the world who are able to see the truth. We must resist and counter the UN Pact for the Future. We must put our energy into designing our own pacts for the future. Furthermore, we must reject the Sustainable Development Goals and embrace Autonomous Development Goals. Finally, we must ignore “The Great Reset” and build “The People’s Reset”. Only once we put our energy into the creation of parallel systems will we see the creation of a truly free society that will last for the next seven generations and beyond.
How do you know a nation is under the judgment of God? Romans 1 tells us that God gives them over to a depraved mind, to sexual immorality, to injustice, and to do things that they ought not do. In other words, the surest sign of God’s judgment is rampant sexual immorality, especially that which is funded and promoted by the wicked government that should be upholding justice and defending righteousness against such pervasive evil.
Here, the FBI was captured marching in the West Hollywood pride parade.
I worked for the FBI for 20 years, and I am glad I retired in 1998. It is both mindboggling and surreal to watch our once great nation plummet into oblivion. Now, Christians must endure the month of June, once known for weddings, turning into LGBTQ lunacy. Look out for drought, flooding, a lack of food, hyperinflation, tornadoes, hurricanes, wars we will lose, etc., etc., as the Lord’s “rewards” for our nations’ apostasy. …and make no mistake, many apostate churches and denominations are in lockstep with the Feds. Maranatha, Pastor Steve <><
Like the author of this article, Jeff Maples, I too have reservations about Jimmy Carter’s faith. Jimmy despised Adrian Rogers and others who boldly and unequivocally stood on the Word of God without apology. He appears to be a liberal Baptist, twisting the Truth to his own liking. Pastor Steve <><
According to reports, former President Jimmy Carter is approaching the end of his life, as shared by his grandson Jason Carter at the 28th Rosalynn Carter Georgia Mental Health Forum. Jason provided an update on the 99-year-old former president, who has been in hospice care for nearly a year and a half, stating, “He really is, I think, coming to the end that, as I’ve said before, there’s a part of this faith journey that is so important to him, and there’s a part of that faith journey that you only can live at the very end, and I think he has been there in that space.”
As Carter spends his final days in his home in Plains, Georgia, his legacy and the implications of his lifelong advocacies come under renewed scrutiny.
Carter, who has often portrayed himself as a devout Christian, even a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher at one time, has promoted policies and taken horrific views on key issues that could only be described as completely godless. While Carter has frequently invoked his faith in his public life, his unrelenting support for the LGBTQ movement and abortion, along with every other godless left-wing ideology under the sun, reveals a troubling state of his soul that should leave him in fear of the coming judgment.
Carter’s promotion of sexual immorality in our culture is one of the most glaring examples of his hatred of God. Despite the clear teachings of Scripture regarding marriage and sexuality, Carter has championed the LGBTQ movement. In a 2015 interview with HuffPost Live, Carter asserted that Jesus would approve of same-sex marriage.
Even more grievously, Carter’s relentless advocacy for the death penalty for unborn children to be carried out on them for the crimes and sins of their parents demonstrates his hatred of the giver of life. As early as 1977, during his presidency, Carter supported federal funding for abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Over the years, he has maintained a position that allows for unfettered access to abortion, especially under various circumstances. By supporting abortion, Carter endorses a practice that ends innocent human lives, flagrantly violating the sanctity of life as ordained by God.
Carter’s advocacy for these positions has significantly impacted public policy and the broader cultural landscape. His support for LGBTQ rights and abortion has contributed to the normalization and legal recognition of these practices, having profound implications for religious freedom and the ability of Christians to live out their faith in the public square. As these issues become more entrenched in society, those who hold to biblical principles face increasing pressure to conform to secular values.
Carter’s positions highlight a broader trend among those who claim the Christian faith yet embrace secular ideologies that conflict with Scripture. This trend reflects a growing tendency to prioritize cultural relevance over biblical fidelity, leading to a compromised witness in the public sphere. Carter’s example serves as a grave warning of the dangers of allowing personal or cultural preferences to supersede the authority of God’s Word.
In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus delivers a stern warning: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” Carter’s advocacy for godless ambitions such as LGBTQ rights and abortion aligns him with those who profess faith but deny its power and authority in their lives.
As Jimmy Carter nears the end of his earthly journey, we lament that he will soon likely hear these chilling words from our Lord. A truly saved person, being sanctified, cannot continue in abject rebellion against his Creator. Scripture affirms that those who endure to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13). Carter’s legacy serves as a somber reminder of the need for unwavering commitment to biblical truth and the perils of compromising with secular ideologies.
In these critical times, believers must remain steadfast in their commitment to God’s Word, upholding the sanctity of marriage and the value of human life. We must trust in the authority of Scripture and reject any cultural trends that seek to undermine the foundations of our faith. Let us pray for true repentance and enduring faith, standing firm in the truth until the end.
The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s (ERLC) Brent Leatherwood’s journey to the center of Southern Baptist policymaking reads not so much as a pilgrimage of faith but rather a trek through the thickets of political activism, where the compass often points left under the guise of “Christian justice.”
Leatherwood’s form of activism, which is a form of “third way-ism,” disguised as “conservatism,” suggests an attempt to straddle the divide between traditional conservatism and progressive ideologies.
Leatherwood’s political trajectory can be traced back to his tenure as the executive director of the Tennessee Republican Party, where his political savvy was honed not on the battlegrounds of polarizing rhetoric but within the more nuanced realms of policy and influence. His ascendancy within the ERLC began under the leadership of far-left political activist and Democrat staffer, Russell Moore, and was essentially a culmination of a career steeped in political strategy and engagement with civic issues.
Yet, it is precisely this background that should lead us to scrutinize the true north of his compass: Does his background point toward a synthesis of justice and Christian ethics, or is he merely using his Southern Baptist platform to advance an ideological agenda out of step with the majority of Southern Baptists.
The crux of the matter is whether Leatherwood’s political activism and policy inclinations harmonize with the chorus of voices within the denomination or is he, and the organization he works for, a rogue entity with no accountability.
In the aftermath of the tragic shooting at the hands of a “transgender” assailant at the Covenant Day School in Nashville—a school that his children also attend—Leatherwood’s response was to wield this moment of vulnerability as a fulcrum for gun control advocacy. It quickly became clear that this wasn’t a measured step toward school safety, it was an exploitation of grief for policy change.
In a letter addressed to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, House Speaker Cameron Sexton, and all members of the legislature, Leatherwood presents an appeal from both his personal experience and on behalf of the majority Southern Baptist sentiment, according to The Tennessean. He urged lawmakers to ensure that no school in Tennessee ever has to endure the same nightmare as the Covenant School tragedy again.
Leatherwood told the lawmakers that Southern Baptists make up one-fifth of the population of Tennessee and have repeatedly called for ways to reduce gun violence, a seemingly veiled threat by the former leader of the TN Republican Party that he may use his power of leadership over Southern Baptists to sway the vote. “Other voices are saying there is too little time left in this legislative session to consider such a proposal. Little credence should be given to that,” he said in the letter, according to the Tennessean.
His battle did not end at the doorsteps of legislative reform but continued into the halls of public knowledge, where he sought to keep the assailant’s motives—a matter of clear public interest—shrouded in secrecy. It was only when a media outlet pierced this veil, releasing the manifesto that revealed these motives—the manifesto clearly indicated a motive that debunks the left’s prevalent “white supremacy” narrative, hence the massive orchestrated cover-up led by Leatherwood. After the leak, Leatherwood condemned the media with far greater vigor than he had condemned the attack itself.
Leatherwood’s advocacy doesn’t pause at the nation’s internal strife but extends its hand across its borders. Here in the United States, he has consistently used his SBC platform to lobby for lax immigration policies, an approach unquestionably at odds with the concerns many Southern Baptists have about national security and the rule of law. His open borders and amnesty activism further accentuate the schism between his political advocacy and the sentiments of a significant portion of Southern Baptists he claims to represent.
The dichotomy between his domestic and international policy stances is unmistakable. While Leatherwood speaks for, so he says, Southern Baptists, a body whose majority disagrees with him, he stands on the backs of conservative Americans to push policies that are anti-American while lobbying Congress to defend a corrupt nation halfway around the planet.
Let’s break this down a bit. Brent Leatherwood, speaking on behalf of over 13 million Southern Baptists, asks lawmakers to implement harsh and ineffective gun control policies in the United States which would only benefit criminals while also asking Congress to force the American taxpayer to send unlimited guns and weapons to Ukraine—who knows whose hands that will end up in.
Same with border control. As millions of invaders cross the American Southern border, Leatherwood lobbies for amnesty as he pushes Congress to defend the Ukrainian border at the expense of the American worker.
The greater question here is not only are Leatherwood’s political views unbiblical and progressive but what is the role of the denomination in public policy making? Should someone in such an influential religious position use his platform to push political policies—particularly, really bad political policies?
I’m not sure, but I’m inclined to believe that the Church has a duty to speak biblical truth to the conscience of the nation, including to lawmakers, that would influence policies that are God-honoring. But the alignment—or misalignment—of Leatherwood’s progressive political activism with the conservative political and Christian views of most Southern Baptists brings to light these questions. Where is the accountability?
Another of the myriad of reasons that our church left the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Leader after leader are afraid to boldly stand on the Word and confront the apostasy of our times. Brent Leatherwood is all about job security, and as far as truth, the Word, and scripture, he has the backbone of a jellyfish. The video below, reveals Leatherwood to be a wolf in sheepskin. His demeanor is that of a secular CEO and does not represent the Christian faith in the least. He is concerned about his position and he is afraid of apostates, and cares not for the Lord’s truth. Personally, I could not stay with such a denomination and sleep soundly. In Christ, Pastor Steve <><
…instead be deadly to Leatherwood’s and the ERLC’s cause. After the release of the Nashville shooter’s manifesto yesterday, Leatherwood held a press briefing with arguably one of the most disingenuous displays of passion I’ve ever seen—it was borderline sociopathic.
Earlier this week, Leatherwood was confronted by Steven Crowder and his team after a court hearing as Leatherwood continues to push for a court order to keep any information regarding the motivation of this attack from the public. Leatherwood, like the weasel that he is, refuses to answer any questions and acts just like any leftist politician who is more concerned about his career than he is about the truth.
On March 27, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, which resulted in multiple fatalities. The attack was carried out by a transgender leftist who had written a “manifesto” which has currently been withheld due to public records requests made by the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department as well as the activism of Southern Baptist Convention ERLC head, Brent Leatherwood.
Brent Leatherwood, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), is calling on TN lawmakers to back a proposal by Governor Bill Lee for an extreme risk protective order law, also known as red flag laws. The proposal would allow the state to temporarily restrict gun purchases if the state deems one to be a danger to themselves or others, yet the criteria that would be used to make the determination remains unclear.
Brent Leatherwood, who is also a parent of three children at Covenant School where the shooting by a deranged transgender assailant took place, shared his experience of receiving a call that a shooter was at the school. In a series of tweets on April 3, he recounted how the trauma and memories of the tragedy would be with his family for the rest of their lives.
“We’ve become numb to these tragedies as a society,” Leatherwood wrote on Twitter. “Defenseless, innocent lives being taken. We should never accept this as a reality. We need to commit ourselves to finding an answer to this epidemic and not rest until it is solved. Count me as a solution seeker on this.”
Unsurprisingly, Leatherwood has exploited this tragedy and used his platform as a Southern Baptist leader in order to advance stricter anti-Second Amendment gun control laws. In a letter addressed to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, House Speaker Cameron Sexton, and all members of the legislature, Leatherwood presented an appeal from both his personal experience and on behalf of the majority Southern Baptist sentiment, according to The Tennessean. He urged lawmakers to ensure that no school in Tennessee ever has to endure the same nightmare as the Covenant School tragedy again.
Leatherwood told the lawmakers that Southern Baptists make up one-fifth of the population of Tennessee and have repeatedly called for ways to reduce gun violence, a seemingly veiled threat by the former leader of the TN Republican Party that he may use his power of leadership over Southern Baptists to sway the vote. “Other voices are saying there is too little time left in this legislative session to consider such a proposal. Little credence should be given to that,” he said in the letter, according to the Tennessean.
In a report at the Epoch Times, it has been further revealed that Leatherwood had not only been advocating for stricter gun laws, but he’s also been working overtime to censor the manifesto written by the deranged transgender activist who killed innocent people on that day. While one would think that a conservative, Bible-believing Christian leader in his right mind could only think of a deranged, transvestite killer as an “unhinged activist,” instead, Leatherwood refers to those who are calling for transparency as such.
Brent and Meredith Leatherwood, parents of three children who were present that day, echo Kinney in saying their current anguish comes from “unhinged activists, unthinking partisans, conspiracy theorists, and various media outlets that value clicks over their community.”
The Leatherwoods said their family had also received “hints” of threats of legal action in order to intimidate them from trying to stop the release of the records. Leatherwood, through his position with the Southern Baptist Convention, has called on stricter gun laws following the shooting.
In November 2023, copies of the shooter’s manifesto were released by Steven Crowder and his media team. Leatherwood proceeded to attack the media and others who had been pushing for the release.
Leatherwood, along with a minority coalition of other parents in the school, had been seeking every possible way to stop the release of the shooter’s written manifesto to the public, and had been successful in preventing the release for several months.
From the release of the manifesto, the Nashville shooter was revealed, as suspected, to be racially motivated in her attack. In fact, the manifesto clearly demonstrated a motive that was built upon the ideologies of Critical Race Theory and anti-white sentiment. Leatherwood, knowing this, had claimed that the release of the manifesto and the motive for this person’s attack was not important and would “re-victimize” the parents and students at the school.
However, in the 2019 El Paso shooting, the ERLC believed that the motive for the attack was important. But that attack was motivated by “white supremacy,” a narrative they had been pushing as a dangerous and deadly ideology.
But since the motive for the Nashville shooting went against the narrative of “white supremacy,” it became clear that the release of the information wouldn’t be deadly to others, but would instead be deadly to Leatherwood’s and the ERLC’s cause. After the release of the Nashville shooter’s manifesto yesterday, Leatherwood held a press briefing with arguably one of the most disingenuous displays of passion I’ve ever seen—it was borderline sociopathic.
Earlier this week, Leatherwood was confronted by Steven Crowder and his team after a court hearing as Leatherwood continues to push for a court order to keep any information regarding the motivation of this attack from the public. Leatherwood, like the weasel that he is, refuses to answer any questions and acts just like any leftist politician who is more concerned about his career than he is about the truth.
Watch:
The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.
The Pope is not and never has been God’s Vicar on earth. Nowadays, it is clear that he is nothing but a mere apostate and heretic, leading millions of his sheeple into the ditch.Perhaps Catholics will now understand the need of the Protestant Church. Pastor Steve <><
No priest or Pope or pastor or spiritual leader can bless something that God Himself does not bless. Their words are empty and void of divine power or authority. They are human utterances and nothing more.
If you have followed my writing and speaking over the decades, you will know that Catholicism has not been a focus of my ministry, either praising it or criticizing it.
At the same time, I recognize the important role of the Catholic Church in standing for the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. That’s what makes the recent pronouncement of Pope Francis, allowing priests to “bless” same-sex couples, especially distressing.
What act of apostasy will be next?
My Catholic colleague John Zmirak wrote on Tuesday,
“Today I got one of those emails nobody wants to receive. You know, the ones where a journalist informs you that the leader of your church has authoritatively endorsed grave, unrepented sin; mocked not just timeless and current church teaching but the natural law itself; and opened up faithful clergy to persecution by the State. And by the way, would you like to comment?” (Later in his article, Zmirak references “Pope Francis’ poisonous reign of error.”)
Specifically, quoting from the Washington Times,
“Pope Francis on Monday approved letting priests bless same-sex couples, sparking criticism from conservative Catholics and praise from the LGBTQ community.
“Such blessings would not rise to the level of church-sanctioned same-sex marriages, the Vatican cautioned, but would offer gay Catholics the opportunity to seek God’s mercy without being subjected to ‘an exhaustive moral analysis.’
“The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the declaration, ‘Fiducia supplicans,’ with the pope’s approval but not his signature less than three months after a papal letter said such blessings were possible so long as they ‘do not transmit a wrong conception of marriage.'”
This is not just a step in the wrong direction. It is theological double-talk, spiritual drivel, and a mockery of the Word of God.
Surely, faithful Catholics around the world will reject this apostate message.
It has no support in Scripture, in divine morality, or in historic Church tradition, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
And so, rather than try to parse the theological nuances of the Pope’s statement, which in the end helps no one and harms many, let me be straightforward.
No priest or Pope or pastor or spiritual leader can bless something that God Himself does not bless. Their words are empty and void of divine power or authority. They are human utterances and nothing more.
As much as a gay couple may be in love, as much as they may revere the traditions of their Church (at least, some of the traditions), and as much as they may be models of kindness and loyalty, the fact is that male + male or female + female represents a fundamental violation of the meaning of marriage, not to mention a fundamental violation of the nature and purpose of humanity.
How then, can a priest bless a couple whose very relationship goes against the order and plan of God? And, speaking in particular of two gay men, how can a priest, representing the Lord, bless them when the Lord Himself deems their sexual relationship to be something detestable in His sight (Leviticus 18:22) and when Paul says that those who practice such things will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
You might say, “You fundamentalists are always attacking homosexuality. What about adultery? What about other kinds of sexual immorality? What about all you Bible-thumping Christians who are addicted to porn?”
But that’s the whole point.
If a Christian leader said, “We are now blessing couples living in adultery,” there would be outrage.
If that leader said, “We are now offering special blessings for all the couples living together out of wedlock,” there would be pushback.
If a church had a weekly porn night where after worship and prayer, the congregants would watch porn, it would set the internet ablaze.
But that is not happening, except perhaps in the case of divorces without biblical justification, followed by illegitimate marriages which are sometimes “blessed” by compromised clergy.
Otherwise, no major Church leaders are sanctioning adultery or fornication or pornography. But some are sanctioning same-sex unions (or, in more compromised settings, same-sex “marriages”).
That is why we respond as we do.
It’s the same thing with LGBTQ+ activism in general.
That activism is affecting children in our nursery schools and young adults on our college campuses. It is everywhere in our society, from social media to the world of sports, and from TV and Hollywood to the business world.
We cannot avoid confronting LGBTQ+ activism and ideology wherever we turn, so we either push back with our own values or we cave in and capitulate.
It’s the same with the Pope’s ridiculous pronouncement. There must be a reply.
The fact that, “Such blessings would not rise to the level of church-sanctioned same-sex marriages” is meaningless.
The “blessings” would sanction something God does not sanction and give false assurances to the couples involved. And is there a gay Catholic on the planet who would not see this as another step in the direction of the ultimate goal, namely, the full acceptance of gay relationships by the Catholic Church?
As for the notion that these blessings were possible as long as they “do not transmit a wrong conception of marriage,” my response is short and sweet: Are you kidding me?
Really now, is the Pope telling us a gay couple can live together, can be emotionally and physically intimate, and can commit to lifelong faithfulness without transmitting a wrong conception of marriage? What is the big difference between the two – other than the obvious fact that two men or two women cannot marry in God’s sight?
In August, I addressed the Church of England’s decision to allow Anglican clergy to “bless” same-sex couples, yet another apostate step made by this rapidly declining faith group.
What will now happen with the Catholic Church?
That is for Catholics to answer, but without question, this could lead to a major rift of sorts, as the strong, conservative elements of the Church will reject this pronouncement outright, whatever the cost. The effects could be seismic. (As I noted in that August article, it is “progressive” Christianity that is dying; the real gospel is thriving.)
As for the gay Catholic couples who see this as a beacon of hope and a sign of the humanity and compassion of the Church, I don’t pretend to see the world through their eyes, and I don’t claim to understand the pain and the struggle they have endured.
I will just say this, with brokenness, not with triumphalism: I don’t doubt your love for each other. I don’t doubt that part of you really wants to honor the Lord.
But I can only tell you the truth. God has a better way, and He never intended you to unite with someone of the same sex.
If you will lay your life before Him, surrendering fully to Jesus as Lord, He will forgive all your sins and give you a fresh new start.
Cry out to Him today!
Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.
There are so few spiritual leaders today in a large public forum who will not waffle in regards to the truth. In Christianity, Franklin Graham is a man among boys, never hesitating to present the full counsel of God. In Christ, Pastor Steve <><
The Rev. Franklin Graham speaks at the “God Loves Your” tour event at the ExCel London convention center in London, England, on Saturday, Aug. 26, 2023.
Franklin Graham says Pope Francis doesn’t have the right to bless ‘what God calls sin’
The Rev. Franklin Graham slammed Pope Francis for approving a measure that will allow Roman Catholic priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples, warning that such “blessings” will not “save you from the judgment of God.”
“So-called ‘blessings’ from religious leaders won’t save you from the judgment of God!” wrote Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.
“Pope Francis has now approved Catholic priests’ blessing’ same-sex couples. But none of us, including the Pope, has the right to ‘bless’ what God calls sin. ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…’ (Isaiah 5:20).”
“The Good News is that right now God will forgive sin, but we have to come to Him His way, on His terms — by repenting of our sins and placing our faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, the Bible says, ‘The destruction of transgressors and of sinners shall be together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed’ (Isaiah 1:28).”
Graham’s comments came hours after the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration titled “Fiducia Supplicans,” providing “a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective.”
“It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage,” stated the Catholic Church leadership.
“This Declaration is also intended as a tribute to the faithful People of God, who worship the Lord with so many gestures of deep trust in his mercy and who, with this confidence, constantly come to seek a blessing from Mother Church.”
The Vatican document stated that “when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it” and that “those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.”
For same-sex couples, “a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who — recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help — do not claim a legitimation of their own status.”
The declaration warned that “one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation.”
“At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing,” the Vatican document continued.
“In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance — but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.”
A declaration issued by the same body in 2021 stated that churches have no power to bless same-sex marriage since God “cannot bless sin.”
Officially, the Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not sinful, but homosexual acts are. However, in the United States, about six in 10 Catholics (61%) said in a 2019 survey that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
Last month, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a guidance stipulating that people who have undergone trans surgical procedures or taken cross-sex hormones can be baptized, provided “there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful.”
Those who elected or felt forced to get vaccinations were often guinea pigs who received their boosters at warp speed. Masks and shots serve no purpose for me, and true science reveals that your God given immunity system is by far your best defense. Untested vaccinations may greatly harm your immune system for the rest of your life. There are many articles on this blog site which clearly reveal some of the detrimental effects of vaccines. People receiving vaccines dramatically increase their chances of getting COVID-19! Dr. Ben Carson scientifically states that the chances of a child being harmed by COVID is 0.025%, or nearly nonexistent. He further states that the vaccines are all about power and control, and pharmaceuticals making money. Imagine that. To trust the vaccine is to trust the vacillating and equivocating Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden and our left wing government. The simple fact that the elite is trying to unconstitutionally force these shots on everyone — that alone is a warning flare to those with discernment. The following lengthy article and You Tube video is yet more proof for those who seek truth, rather than fall in line lock step with the naive masses. By the way, people with understanding realized long ago that the vaccination is by definition NOT a vaccine. Google the words “Died Suddenly” and observe the sad results with many young adults and children everywhere. Blessings, Pastor Steve <><
If you type ‘Died Suddenly’ into Google then you’ll find several news articles posted daily of young adults and children who have unfortunately suffered that very fate. It’s…
Official mortality figures collated by the European Mortality Monitoring Project using data provided by 29 European countries reveal that ever since the EMA first approved the Covid-19 vaccine for … Source: Why have Deaths among Children across Europe increased by 755% since the EMA approved the COVID Vaccine for Kids?October 27, 2022
A 26 year old young man and a baby under a year in my circle of acquaintance both died suddenly and I wonder the same as this author. –STL COVID-shot Echoes: I Had a Most Odd Experience Saturday Mass GTA inoculation scheme a Holocaust, coronavirus genetic-therapy agents Source: COVID-shot…November 16, 2022
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despit… Source: FDA approve COVID Vaccine for 6-month-old Babies despite Data proving Vaccinated Children are 30,200%/303x more likely to die…June 21, 2022
The Exposé relies solely on your support to allow us to report the facts the mainstream refuse to. If you like what we do then please help us to keep doing it with a one-time or monthly donation today…
DIED SUDDENLY: Official figures show at least Three-Quarters of a Million People have “Died Suddenly” across just 20% of all Countries throughout 2022 & Official Government Reports prove COVID Vaccination is to blame
If you type ‘Died Suddenly’ into Google then you’ll find several news articles posted daily of young adults and children who have unfortunately suffered that very fate.
It’s a trend which has unfortunately been increasing over the past two years, and it is showing no sings of slowing down.
In fact, official Government figures published by just 38 countries, including the USA, the UK, Australia, and most of Europe. show that there are at least three-quarters of a million people who have died suddenly in 2022 alone.
No, we’re not making this up. Just 20% of the countries in the entire world have recorded 0.75 million excess deaths so far this year. And there is one thing all these countries have in common. They all coerced millions of their citizens into getting the Covid-19 injection.
Why is that significant? It’s significant because official government reports prove that Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of death. We know this because the unvaccinated population in the UK have the lowest mortality rates per 100,000 population in every single age group. Even children.
This probably explains why Europe has recorded a 552% increase in children who have “died suddenly” ever since the European Medicines Agency (EMA) decided they should be offered and coerced into getting the Covid-19 vaccine.
But don’t just take our word for it. Take a look at the figures taken from all the official Government reports yourselves…
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored newsin your inbox…
EMAIL ADDRESS
SUBSCRIBE
The United States of America
Compared to other countries, the data provided by the US Government is far from transparent and hidden deep within their publications. However, we have finally managed to stumble upon it thanks to an institution known as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEC).
The OEC is an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. And for some reason, the host a wealth of data on excess deaths throughout 2022. You can find that data for yourself here.
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). And it shows excess deaths across the USA by week in 2022 up to week 38 (25th September).
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes weekly figures on deaths registered in England and Wales. The most recent data shows deaths up to 4th November 2022.
The following chart shows the weekly number of deaths between week 16 and week 44 of 2022 and the 2015-2019 five-year average number of deaths between week 16 and week 44 –
Based on the data provided, the two countries have recorded an average of 1,298 excess deaths every single week since the 18th of April 2022.
The following chart is taken from Public Health Scotland’s Covid-19 Dashboard, and it shows the weekly number of deaths compared to the 2015-2019 five-year average –
According to the data, Scotland has suffered 3,398 excess deaths against the five-year average over the past 28 weeks.
The following chart shows the overall number of deaths and excess deaths in England, Wales & Scotland –
The five-year average number of deaths over these 29 weeks equates to 302,881. Meanwhile, the total number of deaths in 2022 over these 29 weeks equates to 343,906.
Therefore, Great Britain has suffered 41,025 excess deaths since the middle of April 2022.
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by Eurostat, the official EU statistics department. And it shows excess deaths across Germany by week in 2022 up to week 38 (25th September).
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by Eurostat, the official EU statistics department. And it shows excess deaths across France by week in 2022 up to week 38 (25th September).
As you can see from the above, France has also suffered an incredible amount of excess deaths throughout 2022. With the grand total equating to 41,861 as of 25th September.
Canada
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by Statistics Canada, the official EU statistics department. And it shows excess deaths across Canada by week in 2022 up to week 28 (17th July).
Canada has suffered excess deaths week on week just like the USA, and the grand total as of 17th July equates to 21,063
Australia
Next up we have Australia.
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. And it shows excess deaths across Australia by week in 2022 up to week 30 (31st July).
Australia is another country that has suffered excess deaths on a weekly basis, with the grand total equating to 18,973.
Europe
EuroMOMO is a European mortality monitoring activity. The organization states that its aim is to “detect and measure excess deaths related to seasonal influenza, pandemics and other public health threats”.
The following chart shows the total number of deaths between week 0 and week 42 of each year according to Euro MOMO (please note Euro MOMO update the figures on a weekly basis so they will have now increased) –
Despite a “miraculous” Covid-19 vaccine being rolled out, Europe suffered a further increase in excess deaths by week 42 of 2021, with a total of 257,760 deaths being recorded. Unfortunately, that “surprising” trend has then continued into this year, with Europe recording 283,457 excess deaths as of week 42, 2022.
This means Europe has suffered 28,896 more excess deaths in 2022 so far than it did during the same time frame at the height of the alleged pandemic in 2020, suggesting the Covid-19 injection has done the complete opposite of its alleged intended effect if we are to believe that Covid-19 was really to blame for so many people dying in 2020.
It also means Europe has suffered 120,880 more excess deaths in 2022 so far than it did during the same time frame in 2018. But even that statistic may not reveal the true severity of the situation, because 2018 was a bad year for deaths due to an alleged severe 2017/2018 winter flu season.
This means the only normal year we have to compare to is 2019, and we can reveal that Europe has recorded 193,363 more excess deaths in 2022 so far than it did during the same period in 2019.
38 Member Countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
The following chart has been created using the figures found in the OEC database. Figures that have been provided to the OEC by the Government of each country. The only country that has been altered is Great Britain due to being able to obtain more up-to-date figures from the ONS. And it shows excess deaths across those countries so far in 2022.
As you can see from the above, every single member country has suffered significant excess deaths throughout 2022, and every single member country has coerced millions of its citizens into getting the Covid-19 injection.
All in all, the total number of excess deaths across the 38 countries, which include the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, some of South America & most of Europe (NOT Ukraine), equates to a shocking 752,743.6 in 2022 so far. That’s over three-quarters of a million more people who have died than expected.
Evidence Covid-19 Vaccination is to blame for over Three-Quarter of a Million Excess Deaths
The following chart is taken directly from the EuroMOMO publication and shows the number of excess deaths (not total deaths) among children aged 0 to 14 across Europe –
As you can see from the above, 2022 has been a record-breaking year for excess deaths among children, beating the previous five years by a mile, and recording deaths way above expected levels.
But what’s most curious about the above chart is when this substantial increase in excess deaths among children started.
According to EuroMOMO, the increase in excess deaths started to occur around week 2022 of 2021.
And it just so happens that this directly coincides with the European Medicines Agency extending emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to children aged 12 to 15.
Prior to this extended emergency use approval, there had been 270 fewer deaths than expected among children in 2021. But following the approval, there were 848 more deaths than expected by the end of the year.
But if you look a the above chart, you’ll see a slight levelling off at week 48 in terms of excess deaths, before they begin to rise again 1 to 2 weeks later.
It just so happens that this directly coincides with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extending emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to children aged 5 to 11.
Is this just a coincidence? It seems far too good to be true if it is.
The following chart shows the combined figures from week 22 of one year to week 44 of the next year for the past five years. (E.g. Week 22 2017 to Week 44 2018 and Week 22 2021 to Week 44 2022)
The chart also shows the average number of deaths over the previous 4 periods. The numbers have been extracted from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.
As you can see, there have been substantially more deaths among children ever since the EMA first approved the Covid-19 injection for 12 to 15-year-olds, with 1,777 excess deaths (not total deaths) recorded between week 22 of 2021 and week 44 of 2022.
The average number of excess deaths over the previous four periods from 2017 to 2021 equates to 272.5 excess deaths.
Therefore, excess deaths among children in 27 countries across Europe have increased by 552% ever since the European Medicines Agency first extended the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to children.
Based on this official data alone, we can therefore conclude that the Covid-19 injection is killing children.
But there is even stronger evidence available that actually makes it officially indefensible to suggest that the Covid-19 injections are not killing people because we have official data published by the UK Government that confirms it.
This data proves that mortality rates per 100,000 are lowest among the unvaccinated in every single age group and highest among the vaccinated population.
The following two charts show the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for non-Covid-19 deaths in England using figures extracted from the ONS dataset –
A more detailed breakdown of the above figures by individual age groups can be found here. But the following chart for 70 to 79-year-olds gives you a good idea of what the data reveals –
In January 2022, the partly vaccinated were 198% more likely to die than the unvaccinated, whilst the double vaccinated were a shocking 267% more likely to die than the unvaccinated.
The worst figures however come in May, which saw triple vaccinated 70-79-year-olds a disturbing 332% more likely to die than unvaccinated 70-79-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 9417.2 per 100k among the triple vaccinated and just 2181 per 100k among the unvaccinated.
And it’s a similar story for every other age group, including children.
The following chart shows the mortality rates by vaccination status per 100,000 person-years among children aged 10 to 14 in England for the period 1st January 2021 to 31st May 2022, according to the figures provided by the ONS –
These figures reveal that unvaccinated children are much less likely to die of Covid-19 than children who have had the Covid-19 injection. And unfortunately, there is little improvement when it comes to non-Covid-19 deaths.
According to the UK Governments own official data, double-vaccinated children are 1422% / 15.22x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children. Whilst triple vaccinated children are 4423% / 45.23x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children.
All of the above is indisputable evidence that Covid-19 vaccination increases a person’s risk of death, and is, therefore, causing more deaths than would have otherwise occurred if the Covid-19 vaccine had not been rolled out.
So with that said, it should come as no surprise to find that every country that has coerced millions of its citizens into getting the Covid-19 injection, has suffered tens to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths so far in 2022.
How many more people will have to “Die Suddenly” before our Governments take action and ban the Covid-19 injections from being administered to the general population?
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored newsin your inbox…
Even Steven 