Posts Tagged ‘liar’

Proof Congresswoman ilhan Omar is a Racist Liar Who Married Her Brother

These aren’t rumors, but facts backed up by pictures/screenshots and official documents. Wikipedia is falsely claiming it’s a conspiracy theory. There’s even some wacko know-it-all “ex-lawyer” (great credential!) “Charles” on quora making a faps3 and absurd lie that “the press corps” (what the hell is that?!) disproved this with DNA, wow, just lies!

Key smoking gun (besides the pictures and social media admissions by Ilhan’s brother: her first known husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, has the same birthdate as a man with the same name that his fellow students say had the same dad as Ilhan (as in the dad has the same name), the same as that of her brother (who in social media posts twice was pictured with Ilhan), a brother she has not publically disclosed as a sibling/brother (and she will not give out the last names of her family, why? Because their real last names is ‘not’ Omar, but ‘Elmi’). Ilhan and others of her family lied about their last names in order to claim relationship to the Omar (Somali) family for quick access to U.S. and U.K. citizenship. Ahmad was apparently intelligent enough stay outside of America, probably realizing that if he were found out would be the target of harassment and would have had a chance of being arrested by ICE (the immigration police).

New Evidence Supports Claims That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

100% Proof Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

ilhan’s Brother Caught Lying About His Education

Why Is This Now New News? Omar Charged With Fraud

INCEST OMAR: Loomer Launches New Merch to Raise Awareness About Ilhan Omar Marrying Brother

Star-Tribune wrote it, “could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.” in February 2019, said “the evidence uncovered thus far isn’t definitive enough to come down on one side or the other.”

For those of you liberals who wonder why I care, it’s because 1. I’m Jewish, or consider myself so as my dad is Jewish (I do not care that in Judaism the mom only counts – it’s a racist doctrine, as Abraham was called the first “Jew” and yet is an Assyrian, and Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian, yet clearly God had considered Moses’ future family line as being sufficient as Jews when God pretended he was about to wipe out most of or half the Jews who were rebellious). 2. Laura Loomer is Jewish and racists within the liberal community are persecuting her and calling her a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia. 3. On Quora I see a shady guy calling himself “Charles” and an “ex-lawyer” with an unbelievable “24,000+” answers on (and a significant yet underwhelming following of 9,900 followers) gave a very suspicious answer about Ilhan, by outright lying and using the infantile and illogical claim that to consider a false accusation is “old hat” that is (possibly) 9 years old (what matters is if it’s true, and it’s coming to light in mass as she became a government official whose opposing the president, all Jews and who can sabotage America via its immigration laws). Something of an interesting side note is that the expression/term/phrase, “old hat” is sexist:

“slang. The vulva. Also: sexual intercourse; a woman regarded as a means of sexual gratification. Now arch. and rare.” – Oxford Dictionary. Ironically the very term “old hat” there is claimed to be a near extinct phrase, itself, old. It originally seems to have meant, “a woman who was only good for sex due to her uselessness and old age” or “a female only good for sex as her vagina has been repeatedly used for sex by more than one male, in otherwords, a “slut”. Shouldn’t Charles, playing know-it-all ex-lawyer (he’s a writer for Apple Inc., too, allegedly) have been careful not to use a sexist expression? It is evidence that Charles is carelessly posting answers. Further evidence is that the expression the way he implied it shows an illogical and criminal state of mind as it’s meaning morphed to, include, “colloq. In predicative use: something considered to be old-fashioned, out of date, unoriginal, or hackneyed.” Since when would wondering about a recently discovered accusation be, “unoriginal” or “old-fashioned”. “Out of date” is an expression itself that refers to style and as such is itself discriminatory/prejudiced then against clothing choice, makeup and hairstyle and by extension then, the treasured doctrine of “liberal diversity”. So, Charles isn’t even using the term correctly and ironically one that itself is considered “out of fashion” to even use and not original/no longer new. Charles meant however, “old news” (apparently trying to force a new meaning to sound clever, original and wise by using a rare term – talk about “weird” and nonsensical”!)

Does it’s older use matter? Of course it does, because in a very large population who seeks information on everything and regarding a very controversial topic in tbe major news people will end up digging into everything, and ironically this topic was something that required some deep digging!

Anne Curzan, an English professor at the University of Michigan claims that the obsolete (pardon this side-topic pun) use of words and phrases no longer counts as what the meaning was replaced with, which true or not, doesn’t excuse Charles’ dually wrong use 1. It’s more modern use applies to fashion 2. He meant it to mean “a topic so old everyone knew about it and that’s been disproven”. 1. It was never a widely known topic as Ilhan herself was obscure and rarely in the news. 2. Again, a thing’s age has nothing to do with it being true or false, it’s grossly childish thinking, like saying, “the Bible is old, so we should completely ignore it” or “climate change”, “rape”, “homosexuality”, “lying”, “evolution”, “evil”. It’s as childish as the expression “judgmental”, itself in it’s modern usage a nonsensical phrase.

The 3rd reason I care about Ilhan’s criminal acts and words, specifically her unlawful marraige is that I don’t think this news has gotten the attention it deserves, as it shows how gullible people, liberal or not, can be in accepting someone merely for the sake of “diversity” (which seems to me to be a word liberals are using out of their dislike for the traditional liberal pretentious ideal of total “unity”/agreement, which truly just meant, “agreement with liberal beliefs/philosophy” – but of course has a conotation of accepting even Christian fundamentalist beliefs which liberals despise, so, they switched to “diversity”, meaning in liberal context, “you don’t have to agree with everyone and any claim like that blacks are mentally inferior, but treat everyone equally under the law, like gays who wish to have the same marraige rights as hetros”, which itsef is hypocritical and impossible as liberals cannot even agree when human life becomes human, and so denies the rights of defenseless babies, and cannot agree when even a preteen child – if at all – should have the right to suicide or have an so called “sex-change”!).

Liberlism is very convoluted. I think too conservatism is too, and perhaps worse, as it seems to imply the Bible sanctions free speech, even lying of the kind liberals use to destroy conservatism. What conservatives fear is their “free speech” to question anything held sacred or “mainstream” or to blaspheme or make statements that merely over being disagreeable, being used to prosecute, censure and execute them over, a fear or concern due to the Catholic Church (a Christian-pagan cult, with an anti-Jewish streak) having used religious doctrines they held sacred (and the Puritans who misused evidence of witchcraft) to do such things. But the conservative and liberal method of dealing with the Catholic and Puritan misuse of religious doctrine is no better. It should never be legal to sanction what traditionally is considered blasphemy or malicious speech that is meant to incite violence or strife, especially random, like a verbal dirty bomb. Example, if I say, “Liberals and conservatives are both fags” or, “Christians are deluded liars”, it should be a criminal slander offense, but ones being broad like that with no direct blasphemy should have a death penalty, just some fine, community service, public rebuke, or a three days in jail. The worse the maliciousness the worse the punishment. Example, if I said, “kids should be tortured for fun”, I’d say that’s six months slaving in some farm, or a year in jail, second offense, double, third, triple, and so on or being committed to a maximum security mental institution until it can be determined by twelve psychologist that whoever said that is not a psychopath or narcissist (two types of mentally ill humans I believe should be in prisons for the insane and pathologically dangerous).

Ilhan’s crimes merit deportation back to Somalia. However, if she admitted the truth, recanted that Jews have magically put the world in a trance (much of the world is disgusted by Jews, so how would that even come close to being true?) and was willing to spend a year in a prison in her home state learning to tolerate Jewish diversity and hear the Bible read each day, I’d say let her stay. That is merciful, unlike Sharia-Muslim law, requiring upwards of 80-200+ lashings with a pronged whip, and even being stoned to death. The Bible only calls for forty lashes for FALSE WITNESS and stoning only by someone who is considered morally pure – part of God’s wise and merciful way of “checks and balances”, till Christ’s return.

Coast to Coast AM Guests Guiley and Imbrogno Lie About Djinn and Demons

George Noory had on a little while ago two guests, Rosemary Ellen Guiley and Phillip Imbrogno, who are pretending to be expernts on the jinn mentioned in the Qur’an, claiming that they weren’t demons, but nicer, and made the absurd claim that demons invade your space and eventually possess you, but that (d)jinn don’t, although some can be psychotic (and don’t invade your space???). They also claimed jinn can partner with demons (wow big difference between them then there, not). They treated the Quran as if it were an honest book, when all the evidence shows that it is lies, and distortions of the truth. What these two idiot false expert guests didn’t mention was that Mohammed/Muhammed learned what he knew about spirituality from a Catholic monk, hence why the Quran contains distorted teaches that obviously came from the Bible, obvious to anyone who has carefully studied the Bible, especially the Bible and Quran. For example, Mohammed made the claim that Mary was part of the Trinity, which a non-Catholic would easily mistake seeing that Catholics worship Mary over Christ and the Holy Spirit, and being that they don’t make an idol of the Holy Spirit, it’s understandable why Mohammed would mistake Mary as a third person. More information about how the Catholic Church helped create the Muslim religion is here: How the Catholic Church Created Islam. Guiley and Imbrogno made many absurd claims, without evidence, but I won’t be mentioning them, at least for now, because they were clearly stupid to anyone whose studied Christianity and Islam carefully and who knows what evidence is and why it matters.

Ramblin’ Steve: a Giant False Christian

June 23, 2010 39 comments

See also: Steve Quayle, False Christian

False Christian Pastor, Robert Tilton
Sweeet money: gimme ur money so I can buy more cool stuff for myself oh flock!
I like Texas a lot, yessum, I do indeed. Yee, yee, yee, yee, yee, yes iiiin DEED!

If anyone has been listening to Steve Quayle tonight on Coast to Coast AM, it’s another good example of what a liar this person is. He rambles (amazingly George Noory is skilled enough to be able to get a word in without it sounding like either is talking over each other) and floods, as if to avoid having to answer any hard questions. When George asked him if he had any scientific evidence for his claims (for example giants having the ability to kill people with electromagnetic waves produced from their skulls), Steve replied, “Of course there is” but gave none and continued to ramble. Very weasely. He cites the Bible as if it were evidence for his claims, yet if you read the Bible you can see that it doesn’t even hint at giants having the ability to hurt anyone from a distance with EM waves. He also, to my disgust, cited that fraud Tom Bearden, and cited the usual nonsense Bearden is known for pretending to be an expert on: scalar waves and perpetual motion. Bearden is a liar who incredibly, managed to dupe some mainstream (evolutionist) scientists into letting him ramble about “his” free energy MEG in their science journals. His mathematical rants have been exposed as hoaxes years ago. Incredibly, it took me to get Wikipedia to put an article up on this con, and despite me citing the evidence that he was a con, Wikipedia deleted the page in jealousy, knowing I was a creationist, but then later added a page on him, a page that didn’t even mention criticisms against him till long after, and even when it cited some of the same evidence I pointed out against his fake science, were merely put as foot notes at the bottom. Why were they protecting this idiot?

During the show George played a song from Steve’s daughter, some country song, part of which was, “I ain’t no housewife”. Is it humble or “Christian” to make housewives appear to be something bad or shameful? Obviously not, but Steve raised that woman.

Steve Quayle is a greatly damaging heretic because he promotes pseudo-science and gives a false impression of what a true Christian is.

Update 2:41 P.M.: What a surprise: Just now Steve said he wasn’t always for turning the other cheek and “I’m not a pacifist”. That makes it pretty clear where his daughter got her arrogant, “I ain’t no housewife” attitude. Hypocritically, after saying this, he kept asking what was wrong with saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So love equals shooting at “giants” and government agents or those who offend you or trespass against you? Jesus also said, “Love your enemies”, “bless those who persecute you” and “not to resist an evil man”, not “resist and shoot your enemies”.

2:47 P.M. A caller just reminded me, indirectly, that spirits are not material beings, yet Steve claims that they can turn into giant beings of flesh and “an appropriate size”. Steve also teaches the false claim that the “Sons of God” mentioned in Genesis were evil angels who had sex with humans and made demonic giant children as a result. “Sons of God” however implies something good, Christians. The Bible doesn’t call evil angels “sons”, it does repeatedly call Christians “sons” however. Only once does the Bible refer to all humans as “children” of God. In Genesis, when it says that the Sons of God took wives from among men, it’s talking about Christians marrying and having children non-Christians.

At about this time Steve said that he believed some book he was selling was going to sell out (in other words to get it now so that others who want it won’t be able to get it, nice), but wasn’t boasting when he said that and wasn’t trying to pitch his book; I don’t think so.

2:55 P.M. Steve is telling everyone that you can see giants who are pretending to be ordinary humans with sound waves. Ridiculous. So everyone is going to go out buying sonar vision now to see who might be preparing to attack them with their EM power and eat them (Steve claims all giants are cannibals).

While listening to this show, Steve, besides sounding like a classic “bullshitter”, reminded me of that false Christian, con pastor televangelist Robert Tilton. Steve’s babble is even like Tilton’s fake speaking-in-tongues routine.

Pastor Robert Tilton smells imaginary bread.

Just imagine givin’ me all your money sweet flock.
Just visualize, then give. That’s right: God wants you to fork it
all over to me. Oh bibili babili babalah babiboh, rahdi tih tah TAH!

Pastor Robert Tilton using his imagination.

I smells me some bread, n’ it smells like, muh muh muh muh munay.
Tithe to Tilton, and ur’ tithin’ to the Lord. 1-800-GIVE-2-GET-RICH
Have faith my friends, have faith. Mmm mmm mmm.

Related articles:

The Resurrection of Robert Tilton

Tilton still swindling in 2009

Other prominent false teachers, starting with Tilton

Ian Punnett Doesn’t Care If He Goes to Hell and Bart Ehrman Is a Refuted Childish Moron

On Coast to Coast AM this morning a woman called in to point out why Bart Ehrman (a Judas whom Ian stupidly let on the show to babble dumbness against God) was wrong to say that there was more than one god on in the Bible. According to the woman, Bart justified himself by saying that the Bible said there was more than one God when it said, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Yes: Bart has resorted to childish mockery and logomachy (arguing over semantics and synonyms, which the Bible forbids and which anyone is despised for doing). And that is why I couldn’t bear to listen to a single word he said when he was a guest on Coast to Coast AM.

A person (maybe me) once asked atheists a hypothetical question about God if he exist, and one of the atheists was so childish, bitter and stupid, that he merely replied with a conniving simple answer like, “But God exist.” Anyone with average intelligence and decent morals realizes the demon-like hate in such an answer. And imagine how atheists would react if they asked Christians, “if evolution were true would you still believe in God” and they replied, “But there is no such thing as evolution.” The atheists would be extremely annoyed and appalled, yet that is the very kind of stupidity and hate Bart is teaching the world, and Ian Punnett helped that demon.

Ian also said that he didn’t believe that evolution and the Bible were in contradiction, and used the old stupid argument that the Bible isn’t a science text book. Well stupid Ian, neither is the Darwinian Pilfered Theory of Evolution, neither is the Origin of the Species, a religious text book, so what is your point? A thing doesn’t need to be about science to refute a false scientific claim or to confirm a truly scientific claim. And no Ian, the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that billions of years past and that Adam and Eve descended from monkeys, bacteria or randomness or the Big Foul Explosion: it says that God made Adam within a day, not a billion days, not a trillion days and not a thousand years.

Again, using stupid Bart’s stupid “logic”, he would argue that I’m implying that God created Adam in a zillion days because I didn’t specifically mention “zillion”. That is how grossly, sickeningly dumb and/or evil Bart Ehrman is.

Besides that, Ehrman is ignoring the rest of the Bible, two verses, one in the Old and one on the New Testament, which make clear that there are no other gods. God also repeatedly said in the Old Testament that the gods people worshiped were merely LIFELESS idols. So how is Bart a scholar when he ignores what is common sense to millions of children who’ve get the obvious after being in church for a few months? Yet moron Ian calmly and smugly argued with the caller in his ignorance, that the verse could mean either. To my disgust the caller praised him for not making her feel stupid. More disgusting was when the next caller praised Ian for his insights into the Bible which the caller claimed was due to Ian’s seminary training. Uh: What insights gullible caller? So saying, “Well Bart the demon might be right that God was saying other gods existed but that he wanted to be the top god” is “insight”? And how does the caller know that this stupid “insight” is due to Ian’s seminary training being that Ian doesn’t say what he learned from it? What sickening evil and dumbness. So how is Ian a Christian when he deny’s the utter obvious, and isn’t sure if God is the only God and denies the power of God?

The Bible has a prophecy about false Christians like Ian:

mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires – 2 Timothy 3:1-6

And about two weeks ago, I made a post in this journal about a show in which a seemingly Christian caller tried to show Ian that he wasn’t saved. What I didn’t mention, but thought about many times, was that Ian had boasted to the caller, “I’m very good at lying.” And last year, I wrote how Ian made a ridiculous claim that the King James Bible was a poor translation and not literal, something which he could have easily found out was wrong from the atheist dominated Wikipedia, atheist which hate Christianity. Why doesn’t Ian, a supposed Christian and ordained minister, have the basic knowledge of millions of Christians, or the atheists of Wikipedia, the worlds most people Internet encyclopedia, read by millions ever day?

I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? … I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. – 2 Corinthians 11:3-15

Shawn Hannity and Governor Rick Perry: Trojan Traitors

January 28, 2010 1 comment

Two days ago, on the Shawn Hannity Show, against a commercial break, a Shawn accepted a call from a female caller, and she told Shawn that there was someone more conservative than Gov. Rick Perry running to be the governor of Texas. Shawn asked her who that was, and she said “Debra Medina“. And she told Shawn that she was better because Perry was not showing that he was against the Trans-Texas Corridor which she told Shawn was a scheme to take away people’s property. Shawn replied, “Look, this idea that we can split votes between conservatives… this is an issue I will bring up in the days to come.” And then the show went to commercial. No surprise to me he said nothing about it yesterday, and probably nothing about it today. May God cause you to confess your pride, greed and hatred of truth and cause you to repent.

More about Gov. Rick Perry:

Youth rape scandal.

Perry Orders That Sixth Grader’s to Be Vaccinated Against Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Rick Perry’s Ties With Merck Run Deep

(Note: I thought I had published this yesterday.)

Hank Hanegraaff: An Extremely Arrogant, Deceiving, Blasphemer and Credit Thief

April 13, 2008 6 comments

Hank Hanegraaff has identified himself as an Arminian by various statements such as the one below made on February, 4, 2000:

God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces his love on people, nor is he a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love him. Instead God grants us the freedom of choice.

The above statement however is logically warped since love is not a thing which is forced, but rather a feeling towards someone. It’s also universally agreed as morally fallacious by everyone but warped person’s like Hank, since a parent isn’t considered to be a rapist for loving anyone in their family such as a baby, who didn’t ask for it for that love, or when their child is angry at the parent and doesn’t want the love of the parent. Who in the world would refer to a parent as hateful or a rapist for giving their child love when the child doesn’t want that love? No one except an insane, extremely evil person, or morally ignorant person.

Also, Hank is incorrectly equating hating God (as all Arminiests seem believe at times) as also necessarily rejecting God’s salvation. For example a child hating is parent would not necessarily also be rejecting the safety that parent provides him with. Hank, no one, has any evidence that to hate God nullifies his love. In fact Scripture says:

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” – Ephesians 4:30

“if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.” – 2 Timothy 2:13.

So, if God disowned a person he forgave because they lost faith that he saved them, then he  would also be disowning his Spirit which he permanently sealed within them, and the Spirit of God is one of the three persons that makes up who God is.

Furthermore, God himself commands Christians to love everyone whether they want it or not:

“Love your neighbor as yourself” and that is the second greatest command according to Jesus, and that includes Christians having to “love your enemies,” as Jesus said, and enemies don’t want the God-compliant love that comes from God-loving Christians.

On top of that where does the Bible teach that anyone who has been given eternal life can lose it? By definition eternal life is eternal, not temporary, and the Bible makes it clear that with eternal life comes an eternity of peace living with God, not an eternity of forever being fallible.

On top of that where does the Bible teach that God doesn’t oppose the decisions of men let alone that he has no right to? The Bible does not teach that what man wants is to be done over what God wants. There is no law over God saying, “God, thou shalt obey man and do as he says over what you want.” It is blasphemy to teach that God has no right to do what he wants over the decisions of his creatures, let alone to call him a rapist for it, as Hank said, using his typical “wiser than thou because I’m being eloquent and using unfamiliar words”. That being true, it is then wrong for Hank to teach (and which Arminiests teach) that if man does not first choose to love / accept God’s love, and God gives it anyways, that God has then committed a crime by violating man’s will.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God, upon loving a man or woman who hates him, enables them to love him and that he directs their heart and mind to love him back without controlling their will:

“May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:5

“The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” – Proverbs 21:1

“In his mind a man plans his course, but Yahweh determines his steps.” – Proverbs 16:9

Furthermore the Bible the Bible teaches that no one will love God until God firsts loves them because the moment a person sins, they are addicted to disobeying God so much so that they cannot love him with being healed / freed:

“Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.'” – John 8:34

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Mark 2:17

“he had healed many… Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’… no one can enter [Satan’s] house and carry off his possessions unless he first binds [Satan]. Then he can rob his house.” – Mark 3:10-11,26

Now, did God oppose the will of the demons who had taken control of the hearts and minds of those they possessed, possessed people who hated Jesus and had virtually become one with their demons? Yes. Did that make Jesus a rapist of those demons or the people he freed them from? Obviously not.

Hank the Mean. Swindling, Plagiarist

Various staff of CRI, an organization that Hank is currently the president of, who worked under it’s former president Walter Martin, have quit CRI due to Hank’s bad manners and wronful use of CRI’s funds and his blatant plagiarism of some books. In 1994 about 30 former staff members of CRI formed a group named the Group for CRI Accountability based on the Bible, specifically Matthew 18. The group tried to meet with Hank but he refused to meet with them, and instead had his lawyer send them threatening letters. The group accused him of misuse of funds and plagiarism in his books.

In the mid 1990s a wrongful dismissal law suit by an ex-CRI staff worker was settled out of court. More recently the Evangelical periodical Christianity Today has carried news items concerning allegations about CRI’s financial management, and of a looming law suit against a Christian critic of the ministry. At least one accountant at CRI attempted to confront Hanegraaff, alleging repeated wrongful use of ministry funds for personal use. Hanegraaff again refused to meet with his accusers, but terminated the accountant. The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability temporarily removed CRI from their approved list, but later, after CRI promised to clean up their act, reinstated CRI without public comment.

Martin’s widow, Darlene Nesland Martin, and eldest daughter Jill Martin-Rische have made public calls for Hanegraaff’s removal from CRI. Martin’s daughter and son-in-law run a ministry that perpetuates Martin’s ministry known as Walter Martin’s Religious Information Network. The public nature of this dispute between Hanegraaff and Martin’s family was reported in April 2000 in the Los Angeles Times (see the “Other Relevant Sources” section), and is evidenced by the fact that in 1997 Hanegraaff was general editor of a posthumous edition of Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults. However, in 2003 an entirely different edition of the book was released that had Ravi Zacharias as general editor with editorial supervision from Jill Martin-Rische.

Hanegraaff has many detractors who cite the unauthorized takeover of the presidency of CRI and a decided change in the direction of the ministry. Others challenge his ethics of citing old quotes out of context to brand other ministers as heretical, even when the quotes have since been retracted and the ministers have changed their views.

In March, 2007, a defamation suit filed by Hank Hanegraaff against aChristian apologist named Bill Alnor was dismissed from the court which judged the suit.

Here is a table showing a examples of how Hank copied a written work called Evangelism Explosion by D. James Kennedy:

Evangelism Explosion vs. Personal Witness Training

by D. James Kennedy
by Hank Hanegraaff
Kennedy goes on visitation to the home of someone who visited his church; he introduces himself, gives his church name, and introduces his two companions, a woman and a man (EE, 24). Hank goes on visitation to the home of someone who visited his church; he introduces himself and his two companions (a woman and a man), and gives his church name (PWT, 3).
Kennedy breaks the ice by noticing a painting (24). “We will… search the room for some indication of his interest. A… painting… trophies…” (51). “As we enter and are seated, we look for items of interest, perhaps a portrait, trophy, or an award.” (3)
“How did you happen to attend our church?” (25). “Earl, how did you happen to visit our church?” (4)
“How did you like the service?” (25) “How did you enjoy the service?” (52) “How did you enjoy the service?” (4)
“The people seemed so friendly and made us feel at home. The singing is just wonderful.” (25) “The music was terrific and the people made us feel really welcome.” (4)
“You know, many people have mentioned to me that they sense something different about our church….” (26) “Perhaps the reason you noticed something special about the service and the people at our church….” (4)
“Testimony” C either of the church, or a personal testimony (26). “Testimony” C a personal testimony (4).
“They have hopes but they don’t know for sure that they would go to heaven…. How about you, Mrs. Tucker?” (26) “…my relationship with God makes me sure that… I will live with Him in heaven forever. How about you Earl….” (4)
“Have you come to a place in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die today you would go to heaven?” (26) “Does your relationship with God make you sure you will go to heaven when you die?” (5)
“Why, I don’t think anyone can really know.” (26) “Not really. I didn’t think anyone could be sure of that.” (5)
“I even learned that that was the reason the Bible was written… ‘that ye may know that ye have eternal life'” (26). “That is precisely why the Bible was written. It was written so we would know how to… be sure that we will live with Him forever when we die” (5).
“Would you like for me to share with you how I made that discovery and how you can know it too?” “Yes, please do.” (27) “May I share with you how I came to have this assurance and how you can have it as well?” “Please do.” (5)
“Before I get into it, let me ask you another question….” (27) “Before I do that, I’d like to get your insight on one more question if I may.” (5)
“Suppose that you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ What would you say?” (27) “I would be interested in what you think the entrance requirements for anyone to get into heaven are.” (59) “What would you say God’s requirements are for you to get into heaven?” (5)
“And I try to be as good as I know how.” (27) “…I’ve tried to keep the Ten Commandments” (18). “Well, I suppose it takes living a good life, being a good person, helping those in need, keeping the ten commandments…” (5).

D. James Kennedy, after finding out about Hank’s plagiarism, wrote a loving response. Hank however, in typical Arminian fashion, sent D.J. Kennedy a hateful response.

There is more evidence of Hank’s plagiarism at


If any of you ware wondering if Hank is a narcissist, I don’t think so, because I haven’t read or heard or seen any indication of immaturity.