Were 3 Armed Felons Killed By Off-Duty El Paso Police Officer? NO. Here’s Why.

Making the rounds this time, is the story of how much US taxpayer dollars were saved by the quick bullet action by an off-duty El Paso police officer when confronted by 3 armed felons who tried to rob him.

As the story goes:

YEE- HAH!!!!!!!!!!

Yee-Hah!, which means Amen!!! in Texas ….

Three armed felons crossed the US border and attempted to rob an off-duty El Paso police officer dressed in civilian clothes while he stood in front of a bank.

The plan was for two of them to grab his backpack and toss it to an accomplice on a stolen motorcycle.

However, the well prepared police officer shot all of them, killing two immediately.

The third was shot in both arms and bled to death before the ambulance arrived.

This is how much the US Taxpayer would have had to pay to prosecute these thugs:

· Arrest and detention for 1 night = $6,000

· Transportation for deportation back to Mexico the next day = $1,000

· Air time for O’BASTARD to apologize in 30 minute speech = $25,000,000

What it actually cost:

· Four .40 Cal. rounds = $1.00

· Taxpayer savings = $25,006,999.00!

Apparently They Picked The Wrong Man to Rob This Time. And There Won’t Be A Next Time!!!!!!!!!!



What a great step towards balancing the budget!!!!!


The photo shown was actally taken from this set of photos from Brazil. If you notice in the background of one photo, for instance, you can see a storefront with the logo for Gravia, which is a Brazilian company.

Here is a possible Google Streetview of where the shooting could have taken place, judging by the color/design of the Gravia sign in the background that matches the photographs.

If you put this blog post through Google Translator, pretty much the same story emerges of 3 attackers stealing a backpack and getting shot by a plain-clothes officer, even so far as praising the officer for quick action — and yet, is dated in September 2008, when Obama hadn’t even been elected yet.

Actual US taxpayer savings: $0, because it didn’t even happen in the US.

Dear YouTube/Google: Please Develop an ASMR-friendly Video Ad System.

Dear YouTube/Google:

I have ASMR. I get a genuine physical, tactile sensation when hearing certain sounds. You might take a gander at how popular AMSR YouTube channels are becoming. This one, for example, has 271,000 subscribers. This one has 477,000 subscribers. This one, 256k. That’s just from the first few search results from from the first page for YouTube search for simply ASMR.

When I browse to YouTube to hear something specific, often I am interrupted by that desire with a very noisy and harsh video advertisement that defeats the whole purpose of seeking out the desired sound. You need to develop a silent setting for ads that auto-mutes ads because your ads can be non-figuratively painful to hear. I can, yes, just mute the system sound until I’m ready to hear what I’m intentionally browsing to, but that still defeats the purpose of the ad. That would be similar to showing beer pre-roll commercials to someone seeking to treat alcohol addiction. It’s dumb, and it needs to stop.

Please develop or create a culture of advertisers who will gladly produce visual-only advertisements that otherwise have silence, perhaps that use a lot of visual words to explain the advertisement if they need to communicate something verbally, instead of blasting me with audio. Also, allow me to select an ASMR-setting so that only ads that are silent (or otherwise auto-muted) will play for me, because it is non-figuratively painful to hear the ads, and are therefore counterproductive of encouraging listening to what the ad is trying to say. On the reverse of that, noticing that an ad is silent will prompt me to pay more attention to it because it is something I’m geared toward.

At least meet me in the middle somewhere. My brand image of YouTube as a place to go for something I want to hear is deteriorating, because of how insensitive pre-roll ads are for me and how there’s no way to opt out of them. Perhaps you could detect that a user already has subscriptions to ASMR channels, and ensure those users receive silent ads.

Considering this is an actual physical ability issue, just as you might accommodate for wheelchair accessibility, please consider implementing an algorithm that actively monitors whether someone is subscribed to (perhaps even multiple) ASMR channels to boost or weight the RNG (or whatever) to ensure silent ads are pre-rolled instead of noisy ones. Currently, you have cultivated a community of people who feel an actual tactile pain sensation when getting caught off-guard by a noisy ad that was drastically different from what they expected to hear when browsing to a video hosted on YouTube.

I even subscribe to several non-ASMR channels such as Dexbonus because she appeals to my personal tastes in voices that my ears do not react painfully toward, but her general subject matter may likely be video games — but I do not want loud-blaring video game ads to pre-roll for me. Please consider developing a very intense preference toward subscribers of ASMR subscribers to receive strictly silent pre-roll ads perhaps even just as an experiment to see whether clickthru or watching the whole ad makes any difference.


ablestmage :-3

“SATANISM represents kindness to those who deserve it..” on Tumblr

A post on tumblr that has been making the rounds really caught my eye, that seemed to propose satanism as an acceptable way of thinking:

Those interested in this line of thinking may actually find themselves to be more of a biblical Christian than they realize.

I propose that the kind of Christian who believes that God lays down the law and that’s the final word, are wolves in sheep’s clothing, perhaps even believing they are sheep among the flock. When the sheep is shorn, however, they are revealed for who they really are: actually in opposition to Christ.

Among Christians, there is a term that floats around called “legalism” and many try to falsely insert legalism into Christianity, when instead Christianity is anti-legalism.

Legalism attempts to establish that the [laws of the Old Testament] (henceforth “613”) are still in effect, whereas, the 613 are not in effect, actually. Legalism is incompatible with Christianity, because the essence of Christianity is that Christ fulfills the law on behalf of those who accept his help: those who are in Christ are not under the law, because it is upon Christ’s record of obedience that judgment of them is made, not upon their own records of obedience. The pursuit of righteousness (obedience to the 613) is not that which gains salvation from the law, in Christ.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. (Romans 9:30-31).

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (Romans 8:2)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)

Christians who declare that the law is still in effect, are in overt contradiction to scripture that clearly states the law is no longer in effect. That is, in fact, good news — and that is what makes those in favor of the above satanism descriptions actually quite a bit more like an actual biblical Christian than the so-called Christians who try to subject everyone to religious laws. Christians live in a state of forgiveness from the law and are not subject to it.

Likewise, those who propose the law still holds water are more like until the so-called satanists they believe themselves opposed to:

(a) If idolatry or false-god worship is forbidden by the first commandment, and
(b) the 613 are still in effect, and
(c) the bible is the exclusive source for discerning the identity of God, and
(d) worshipping a half-truth version of God is idolatry:

then, those who proclaim that the 613 is still in effect are worshipping a false god, and are not Christians by their own definition of Christian.

In fact, the book of Galatians in the new testament, is a letter written by Paul to the church of Galatia, specifically to reprimand them for trying to declare that you must have both Christ and righteousness, and how that idea is wrong.

Who is Johanna F. Herrstedt?

I have been enamoured by a fashion model on Facebook the last few months, who goes by the name Johanna F. Herrstedt. For the most part, her identity still remains a mystery — but perhaps by design.

I haven’t been able to find very much biographical detail about her, except that she runs a mostly-Swedish blog at Herrstedt.com, which has some English translations, as well as instagram, twitter, youtube, and tumblr (which has a “sister” version at glitterbox.blogg.se. I did find modeling profiles for her on Lookbook.nu and Global Model Scouting.

Most sources seem to agree she was born in 1994 (age 21 as of 2015) and lives in “Sweden not Stockholm.” She was also featured in the music video Ghost Town by Kerbera:

There does seem to be an established presence online specifically bent on revealing Johanna as heavily-photoshopped, but many of the photos attributed as her may actually be photographs of a model who looks similar at certain angles named Elsa Fredriksson or due to the fact that a person’s appearance can change noticeably over the span of only a few years due to natural processes of maturity and personal maintenance.

Also, one element of being a fashion model is inconsistency of appearance: depending on the makeup and wardrobe artistry performed for whatever a model signed to shoot, a model may appear to be one way and in the next shoot appear a completely different way even in profile due to prosthetics, holding one’s lips closed while opening the jaw for a longer jawline shape, packing on cosmetics and artificial textures to change the shape of the face, and other visual tricks outside of photoshop.

Australian modeling mega-star Gemma Ward, for instance, (whose rise to stardom I enjoyed following closely) looks drastically different from one shoot to the next depending on even very simple aspects like lighting — and that is credited among her strengths as a model, in ability to portray a wide variety of looks as a kind of ideal canvas upon which artistry can be boldly and very favorably represented. The emphasis of the fabric, brand, cosmetic, or otherwise product is often the role of models (rather than self), so much that the model may often go entirely uncredited for their work. I have personally written some companies whose ads have appeared in Vogue or Harper’s Bazaar for the name of a model in a certain ad, only to be denied just knowing their name, as a fan.

Her voice can be heard during what appears to be a self-introduction filmed at a public XO2U modeling showcase here (from appx 3:49 thru 4:15) and can be seen scattered throughout:

As of publication, I am still pursuing an informal text-based interview with Johanna via contact details in hopes to gain a little insight, without being too nosey or controversial. This article will be updated to reflect those details, if any.

Predictions for US Election 2016


I generally stay out of politics except to provide evidence to establish or dismiss rumors that occasionally have to deal with political things, like whether Obama removed the flags from the press briefing area to be replaced with gold Muslim prayer curtains (and no, he didn’t; those identical curtains have been there since Nixon or prior).

My particular political leanings are too scattershot to decide on a party and highly critical of conspiracy theories. I would call myself independent from Independent voters, if that makes sense. However, I thought I’d diverge from the no-politics game for just a moment to throw out some ideas for discussion.

Also, I do not blame “the media” for anything, nor do I believe they are organized — because you personally choose your own media. The television I do own is only used as an HD monitor and is only switched to TV modes for severe weather alerts. If all you have is a TV to get your news, and then blowhards at work telling you their interpretation of what the news said last night or whatever, then your strategy for getting news is possibly the dumbest strategy ever and have no business complaining about the media, because you know approximately one billionth of the news out there. Big box news anchors get a finger nail file’s worth of time to whittle away at Mount Rushmore, when they’re not reporting on sob stories.

Note the date this was written: August 21, 2015. No nominees have been named. I don’t have any of the knowledge available to those people reading this after that date.


I have predicted all of the US president election winners Clinton thru Obama with success, before the official nominations were even made, which began about the time I started paying only vague attention out of high school. I still only pay vague attention, but I’m pretty sure who is elected has little to do with issues than it does just the general image of the person running, especially since Ron Paul was deemed “unelectable” early on and for some reason that hung with him regardless of his position on anything. This is not a rant, just a set of personal, no-stakes predictions along the same level of personal investment as a person making their draft picks for fantasy football for the first time and not even really liking football.

My prediction is Hillary for the win, not only to be the first female president but also to upset the Dem/GOP switching pattern. The two-Dems in a row idea is important, because it makes for an even greater sap story than just how women being elected already is one. Weed being legalized in all 50 will bring previously-non-voters out of the sideline to her favor for a giant landslide. Obama having legalized gay marriage already was good timing in her favor, because that likely will not clog up the debate.

Hillary I think already has the woman vote, which will (a) take an epic amount of votes away from GOP hands down even if done in secret, *plus* (b) enough women who have never voted will emerge from the peanut gallery to vote just because of a potential woman president. “(B)” may not be a lot, but it will be statistically significant in her favor.

Trump might actually be *the* epic Trump-card..

If he threatens the GOP with switching to independent as a ransom (at risk of stealing loads of GOP votes) for getting the GOP nod, he can easily get the GOP platform regardless of his position on issues as long as he maintains the smackdown character.

If he gets the GOP nod and runs, he’ll keep all those GOP votes but I still think all Hillary needs to do is figuratively sit back without even having to campaign, unless she royally screws up in the final debates somehow but even then it would just be a close win in her favor.

If Trump gets the GOP nod and then just *drops out* at just the right timing, the GOP will have to scramble to re-nominate someone and then the Dems will get all the clout because the GOP will be viewed as a party that can’t even nominate someone serious enough.

If he gets the GOP nod and then switches party preference at the right timing as above, to Democrat, he won’t lose any GOP funding because he’s already self-funded, and might actually take away a bunch of Dem votes to *nearly* (but not quite) guarantee a GOP win. Even if he takes a bunch of Dem votes also away from Hillary, it will only be the numbers of party line voters on the Dem side which will have to actually pay attention for once and possibly vote non-Hillary if the image is just deep/shallow enough to not bother with actually doing any research and just trusting a single weekly newspaper recap or a steaming head on AM radio the night before or morning of.

However, the GOP could already have a backup in place that could swoop in as a replacement, as prep for when Trump does make the (planned-and-timed) switch to Dem. While the Dems are scrambling for what to do now with 2 Dem nominees well after the nomination phase has occurred, both parties would be seen for their true colors as a disorganized muddle of children slap-fighting for who has the most toys.

At that point, Trump could switch *again* to Independent and then get a landslide of votes because of being seen as someone who was just playing both sides for the children that they are, and that he is the right person for the American people by cutting through all the crap. I still think Hillary will win, but Trump has a chance if he moves his pieces right.

If Trump does no timed switching/quitting and runs GOP legit, he could still be owed a lifetime of protection for having secured the Dem win just by sabotaging the GOP from within, or else (without intentional sabotage) offering the impression that the GOP has an identity crisis and can’t figure itself out anymore. If the GOP attempts to sue Trump for that, he’ll have all the Dem backing/pardons to get him out of whatever penalties are placed upon him.

I don’t think either side’s win will have much to do with position on particular issues, but rather because of (a) vagueness of overall image, (b) leverage of the identity that is formed by the people who eavesdrop/lurk on what blowhard co-workers rant about, and (c) how approaching-100% of the public seems totally fine with not fact checking anything because they need to do the laundry or whatever.

(As a side note, “trump” is the British word for “fart”. That just needed to be said.)

Why Was Russia’s Teardrop Memorial Never Covered in US Media? It Was, Actually.

You may have only just recently heard of Russia’s tribute to America’s struggle against terrorism, via a teardrop-shaped memorial that points toward the statue of liberty. The title of the artwork, crafted by Russian artist Zurab Tsereteli, is “To The Struggle Against World Terrorism.”

A forward making the rounds lately asks, “Now ask yourself: why was there never any press coverage of such a beautiful and generous gift?”

There was, however, plenty of press coverage, at the time. CNN had a live broadcast of the dedication ceremony, at which former-president Bill Clinton made the keynote. Vladimir Putin was on scene there himself for photos, which can be found at the 9-11 Memorial website. US country-music artist LeAnn Rimes was at the dedication and sang Amazing Grace.

Personally, I think the biggest reason is that it’s not even really that big of a story. There are in fact at least 43 structural monuments in commemoration or dedication to 9-11 as of this article’s writing, so I can imagine one out of 43 being pretty easy to forget about. It was also installed in September 2006, which as of this article’s writing is nearly ten years ago. Why would the “media” report on it 10 years after the fact? Millions of things have grasped the nation’s attention since then — how could you be expected to remember the dedication of a monument?

The structure itself is not even really all that inspiring. I mean, Lady Liberty makes sense at least. A person with a torch and tome is someone with which one can empathize. This monument, however, is more of a head-scratcher than inspiring.

Also, you must remember that the “media” was very likely inundated with other 9-11 tributes of their own, considering it was commemorated on the day of the “five years later” anniversary of the attacks. You know every individual city’s media outlet in the nation had their own tribute to broadcast. The Today Show on NBC had their own tribute at the time. Could it not have been through all of that you may have overlooked a single memorial dedication, of a sculpture that isn’t even really that popular based on looks alone?

For those concerned about “the media” failing to report on it:

Incidentally, there’s also a glass cube in Boston, near Logan International Airport from which two of the planes in the attacks left. Is the fact that you didn’t know about that also, something else you can blame “the media” for? How about you actually going out and learning about stuff you want to know about, instead of blaming those who spoon-feed you a very limited cross-section of information available within an hourish per day? “The media” isn’t organized since you choose it. If you were strapped to a chair and forced to watch Barney all day, sure, that’d be cause for concern. However, you’re reading this ON THE INTERNET. There are literally thousands of media options available, and just because one of perhaps 6 that still broadcast on the ancient television set fail to cover a single subject you personally find inspiring is indicative that you personally have the dumbest strategy ever for figuring out how to get news.

40 Questions Answered to The Gospel Coalition Rainbow Flag List, 6-10

Recently The Gospel Coalition posted an article asking self-proclaimed Evangelicals to answer 40 questions that challenge their reasoning, in light of the recent favoritism being shown toward the non-traditional marriage ruling by the US Supreme Court:

If you consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian, a follower of Jesus whose chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, there are important questions I hope you will consider before picking up your flag and cheering on the sexual revolution. These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.

(for the purposes of brevity I’ll used “non-1/1” to represent what might otherwise be described as varieties of marriage that are not 1-man/1-woman)

These are my answers to those questions, broken up into sections: 6-10 (below); and to be linked when created: 1-5, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

(previous question: 5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? answered here, short answer: Jesus in the woman-at-the-well example of having multiple husbands in ‘illegal’ marriage arrangement was concerned for her salvation above all else and used it as a point of conviction for needing the life-giving water, not as a threat)

Firstly, I believe Jesus would focus devotedly and resolutely upon ascertaining whether the person were saved or not, specifically. The why-where-what/etc of which particular sin when is irrelevant, because all fall short (Rom 3:23) no matter who you are. The whole point regardless of your particular thorn is salvation, and that’s the sword that Christ brings. Did you marry a man? Guess what: you fall short of the glory of God. Bam. Did you disobey your parents, ever? Guess what: you fall short of the glory of God. Bam. The people who disobey their parents are equal under the law as men who marry men, or women who marry women. No matter who Jesus met, no matter where.. every single person would have fallen short, and they why/when/how is a level playing field. To call someone out on their sin in condemnation is to condemn the self because that person is your equal under the 613.

Secondly, the passage I can only presume the passage you fail to cite specifically is Matthew 19:3-7:

“And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

The claim that this is the “definition of marriage” is fraught with folly. You could just as easily claim that this is the “definition of why a man will leave his father and mother” and propose that there can be no other reason under the sun that a man may leave his father and mother, despite Jesus having done precisely that without marrying.

If the definition of marriage pivots squarely upon being male and female according to the parenthetical aspects passage, then you must intentionally omit all of the other aspects of the same parenthetical nature, including the plainly stated fact that ‘a man shall leave his father and mother’ as being the role of a male, leaving no other reason for a man to leave his mother and father but to marry.

What you are doing is extracting a single detail from a list of clauses that lead up to an answer about divorce, and trying to insert from that single detail that it is somehow the only permissible prescriptive nature of marriage. Jesus himself left his mother and father, but did not marry — so by your extraction method of single details within a clause-built rationale against another topic entirely, Jesus would himself be just as guilty of failing to abide by the 613 and therefore render all of salvation ineffective for failing to be the unblemished sacrifice. Or, perhaps this is not actually the definition of marriage.

Thirdly, your interpretation conflicts with other verses. How do you reconcile other verses that conflict with this position you’ve extracted? If you are at liberty to extract that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, then how do you handle, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate,” immediately following it? That would fall under Romans 13:1-2 stating,

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Even further, to drive that point home, Romans 13:7 proclaims, “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” It is your scripturally-defined duty to honor the marriage of gays in lands which declare it legal., as stated here. You yourself are knowingly transgressing the law. Simple breaking of the law could be ignorance of it, but you are not ignorant. You are acknowledging the law and then trampling upon it in defiance.

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

I do not believe he was forbidding any sins that were not already specified, and that Christ has made no additions or subtractions from the law. The role of the law is to convict all, and under the law prior to Christ’s commentary on it, all do fall short of its complete obedience.

Complete obedience to the full letter of all of the 613 is the encompassing message by broader context, and guilt of just one law is guilt of all laws since you are sorted into one of only 2 categories: outside of the law, or under the law. If you’re under the law, you’re guilty of all it (James 2:10) all fall short. If you’re outside of it thru grace or because you are actually Jesus, then you are exempted and the penalties thereof are of no application to you. Your guilt of even the smallest amount, such as having ever disobeyed your parents even if your parents are complete lunatics, you are due the same penalty as the so-called transgression of homosexual marriage as homosexuals who marry.

Which specific sins he forbade in speaking against “porneia” or at any other point, is irrelevant. As a sinner, you, the accuser that homosexual marriage is sin and warrants condemnation, are as identical in guilt as those you accuse, as am I. You’re basically an equal calling out another equal as an equal, except condemning the equality you share.

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

I am assuming that the “exchange” you speak of refers to Romans 1 beginning in verse 25 (since you insist on not citing specifics for some bizarre reason):

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” (25-28, NIV)

However, your diligence to point this out ever-so-conveniently omits 29 and 30 of that same passage:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; hey have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

The acceptability of homosexual behavior (or any other kind) is two-fold: the relationship between the pot and the potter, and the relationship between one pot and another pot.

The relationship between pot and potter is strictly potter-sided, as in Romans 9:21, “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” and the pot has no room whatsoever for comment. Just as well, the potter is at complete liberty to break pots, and to use broken pot shards at his liberty even if they do not fulfill their roles as pots. Do you have ears to hear? If the potter were to use a pot shard to make a painful etching into a whole pot, is that not still the liberty of the potter?

Your identity as the pot and not the potter, to other pots is through the potter. You identity as a pot and role for you as a pot is assigned by the potter in the same way that the identity for other pots and role thereof is assigned by the potter. Your condemnation of other pots for being who the potter created them to be from the same lump of clay, jeopardizes your identity as a pot. When you strike at someone else’s identity as a pot, created from the same clump of clay by the same potter, you strike at your own foundation. You strike at the role the potter has assigned other pots, and therefore strike at the potter for having assigned them that role — because a pot has no other role than that which the potter assigns it.

(combined) 9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven? // 10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9) // But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Rev 21:8)

The listed variables are not the limitations of that which prevent heavenly citizenship. But even assuming just for the wayside moment in your specific argument, let’s take examine others in that list that apply to those not engaged in homosexual marriages: you and me, for instance.

What would you propose an “idolater” is? Would agree that an idolater one that worships a false god? Would you not also agree that one who worships a false god as if it were YHWH and even claiming the false god to be YHWH an idolater?

If you were to dial a wrong number on the telephone, would you reach the person you had intended to call, or would you reach someone else? You would reach the person whose number you called, rather than the person you intended to call using all of the correct numbers in the correct order. You could still have even all the correct numbers, and even the correct number of numbers and quantity of each number, but not dialed in the proper order, you still reach someone else than you intended. When you worship a god you claim to be YHWH, but you omit even a single item of the truth about that God to suit your purposes, are you not an idolater?

Take also, into account the “faithless” whose portion “will be in the lake of fire that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death:

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.” (Romans 9:30-31)

Let that sink in. The people of Israel sought to justify themselves in the righteousness of the law and do not obtain it. The Gentiles do not pursue righteousness but have obtained it, by their faith. ARE YOU NOT PROPOSING RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE LAW?

Is Burned Baby Getting $3 Per Facebook Share? No. It’s from 2005.

This photo has been circulating recently claiming that Facebook is giving the family of the infant burn victim $3 per every share of the photo.

The photo dates back to at least 2006 via email forwards claiming that $0.03 would be donated for each forwarding of the email — the child is currently at least 9 years old now. The forward claims her name is Alexandra Kuczma, but the child’s actual name is Olenka Kuczma. The story about having been burned from a house fire (in Poland in 2005) is believed true, but no known system for tracking emails or Facebook donations based on shares exists.

An updated photograph of the child can be seen in this 2010 article (in Polish), which Google translates to read that a fraudster is “currently” facing criminal charges in false charity-raising for the child. “Ola” is described then as doing well and is smart, and wore a helmet to school to protect her still-fragile head. This Snopes article also confirms the falsity of the Facebook version.

Biggest culprits known to me:

Published by Rose Prater, dated August 2012; 1,621,301 shares as of this publication.