End times · government · human rights · law · politics · religion · U.S. Constitution

Unwavering obedience applies to thee, but not to me: 3 quotes about liberals & Kim Davis

U.S.-Constitution-WikimediaI’m still on my Kim Davis kick, especially since it has such major implications for America’s future and the future of not only Christians, but also of Jews and other people with a good moral conscience in the U.S. and elsewhere. I came across this article on the American Thinker website which is among many of the good arguments made regarding how Christian Kentucky clerk Kim has been treated by judicial left-leaning activists (including the ungodly ones on the Supreme Court) and the lieberals backing them. Blogger Tom Trinko, who wrote the article entitled “Liberalism and Optional Law” makes some very succinct and wise observations for why it’s important to support Kim Davis’s decision not to give out marriage licenses in response to the rogue majority opinion of the Supreme Court on gay “marriage” (even though there is no such thing). Here are 3 observations Mr. Trinko made:

1) “…because conservatives believe in the rule of law there is a natural tendency to say that even if we, especially government officials, don’t like a Supreme Court ruling we have to abide by it.

“On the other hand, there’s the fact that liberals constantly break the law with impunity. For example, Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8 and Obama refused to enforce DOMA yet neither are in jail.”

2) “…rule of law — that the laws apply equally to all Americans — no longer exists in America. Obama’s imperial presidency, sanctuary cities, and the liberal establishment’s refusal to enforce laws they don’t like means that the law does not apply equally, even in principle, to all Americans.”

3) “Given that liberals have no problem using the full force of the government against anyone who objects to unjust laws our options are either acceptance of second-hand citizenship for the American people or standing up to the liberal elites…The Constitution never mentions marriage but it does say that whatever the Constitution does not cover is reserved to states. That’s why the 14th Amendment had to be passed — to ensure that blacks were treated fairly — and why an act of Congress was required to grant Native Americans citizenship.”

This is just a very small sample of the many points he made. Since we have all kinds of examples across the U.S. similar to what Mr. Trinko notes, can we afford to cave to every whim of lieberals who really care nothing about the law? What would’ve happened in Houston if the pastors just caved to the illegal ordinance of their mayor and city council regarding LGBTs’ use of their facilities or her order to submit their sermons for her review? What if the Tshirt maker in Kentucky had just caved to gay activists and the Human Rights Commission decision with their boycotts and demand to print shirts with a message not in line with their business model?

If we follow the reasoning of the lieberals, we would hate the remarkable, exceptional history of our nation. But that’s what they want. If we must obey unjust laws, the Declaration of Independence would never have been written–and, thus, no United States of America. Abolitionists and the Underground Railroad would have never been effective against slavery.

So the lieberal mentality that “unwavering obedience applies to thee, but not to me,” deserves a good, swift kick in the rear, if you ask me (and even if you don’t ask me 🙂 ).

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:3

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed Isaiah 10:1


5 thoughts on “Unwavering obedience applies to thee, but not to me: 3 quotes about liberals & Kim Davis

  1. Hi Harry,

    I found this website and was wondering if I could ask for you help on this one


    I don’t know if you’ve heard of Matthew Vines and have already made an article about this, but he’s a self-proclaimed gay christian and said he had a break from University for 2 years just to research about homosexuality and what the bible really says about it. Obviously he has his own interpretation and have created an idol. He uses different sins that we commit from day to day to the sin of homosexuality. Saying some Christians eat port, shellfish etc. etc. when the bible forbids it etc. You see, this is where I get personally get caught on things. I love eating seafood (esp praws, crabs, squid/octopus), and sometimes, when I feel like it, I eat pork. Maybe I should stop eating them? I have faced homosexual “christians” like these and would say the same thing to me and would call me a bigot and a hypocrite. You’re probably a busy man, but when you have time, have a read through the article.




    1. Hi, Patrick.

      Matthew Vines is not really a Bible scholar, but is similar to the people in the Jesus seminar who hate the truth of God’s word. He is the fulfillment of Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3 and Peter in 2 Peter 2:1. I’ll draw your attention to his use of Ezekiel 16 as a denial that God spoke of ordinary gay relationships. It’s an argument that precedes Vines. Here’s the whole passage to get the context:

      Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Ezekiel 16:49-50

      So then one must ask what “abomination” is it talking about here? The answer is then found in Leviticus 18:22– “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

      Jesus said in John 15:20, “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” He set the precedent that those who keep (obey) his teachings will keep the teachings of his disciples. Peter recognized that Paul’s teachings were God’s scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. So did the rest of Christ’s apostles at the church in Jerusalem in Acts 15. So since Jesus taught us to keep their teachings, and they verified Paul’s teachings as being from God, then those who keep Christ’s teachings will hold to Paul’s teachings when he speaks against the sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which includes effeminate [men who play the part of women], and abusers of themselves with mankind [men who sleep with other men].

      Additionally, Jesus specifically said in Revelation 21:8 that he would not let “whoremongers” into his kingdom. This specific word was used primarily for male prostitutes and for men who played the whore by sleeping around (fornicators) outside of real marriage, regardless of the gender of their sex partner(s). The Bible recognized them as male sluts before we came up with this modern phrase.

      As far as shellfish are concerned, we have to understand that there are different types of laws in the Old Testament. The laws about shellfish were dietary laws, not spiritual laws and people who ate them were NOT given the death penalty as Vines falsely claims. This shows Vines really doesn’t know the Bible and he counts on people listening to him not to know it either so he can fool them like Satan did with Eve in the garden of Eden and like he attempted to do with Christ in the wilderness when he misquoted a Psalm. Dietary laws about seafood are in Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10.

      Dietary laws have zero application to getting into heaven or having a good relationship with God. We know this by what Jesus said–Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. Mark 7:18-23. Then Paul agreed when he said–For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men… Romans 14:17-18

      Dietary laws were for their physical health. Shellfish are bottom-feeding scavengers and easily spread diseases when not prepared correctly. That’s most likely why God wanted them to avoid them. When people bring up such topics, it’s a tactic to throw up a religious smokescreen to get you off the important topic of their sin. It’s the same type of tactic the Samaritan woman at the well used on Jesus when he discussed the sin of her shacking up with a man in John 4. She tried to turn the conversation into an argument by criticizing the Jews about their place of worship. But Jesus didn’t fall for it and turned the conversation back to dealing with her religious misconceptions.

      Sorry if this was a bit long-winded.


      1. Haha, no mate, that was worth it. I guess by saying that the dietary requirements as you’ve mentioned are a “minor” sin if you could say it that way. Sexual sins, especially homosexuality, seems to be dealt in higher level because both old and new testament condemns it. Jesus was straight forward about marriage in Matthew 19, although the topic is about divorce, but I believe during His time here on earth, it is already a fixed agreement between him and the pharisees that homosexuality is an abomination without having the need of mentioning. No one should be adding or removing anything to what’s already been affixed by God Himself. God, being all knowing, he already knows what we need and what needs to be done by telling us through His scriptures, and therefore, we shouldn’t be adding anything to what God says. Unfortunately, this is what gay christians and Christians who agrees with gay marriage does. Idolatry I should say. They want to twist the scriptures that would accommodate their own comfort and calling what they as love. I’m curious to know how they’ll answer the question, “Did God create homosexuality?”, if they answer no, then they’re in big trouble… Anyway, thanks for answering back.


  2. Here is something for the “the U. S. Supreme Court is infallible and cannot make mistakes” people to explain. What do you do with the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision? Writing for the majority, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, (a devout Roman Catholic, who received no rebuke from his Church of it) decreed in this U. S. Supreme Court decision that blacks could not become U.S. citizens and that they “had no rights which the white man is bound to respect”. Now that was the “law of the land”, the end of the matter and something that had to be obeyed, was it not? That the “rule of law”, including rulings like this, must be supreme, has been repeated with the case of this woman.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.