Occupy Democrats – “It’s the Republicans Fault!”

“OccupyDemocrats” is an internet entity that proclaims the virtues of the Democrat party and labors to cast the Republican / Conservative platform in a bad light. You saw that recently with the ad displayed to the right. Should you wonder if there’s any truth to what they’re saying, read on.

What is happening right now is called a fillibuster. It’s a tactic used to delay the final vote on a specific piece of legislation. It doesn’t happen in the House, it only occurs in the Senate.

While there is a Republican majority in the Senate, they don’t have enough votes to pass any bill without the support of some Democrats. It’s here where the Democrats are using their advantage to delay a vote, hence it’s the Democrats who are responsible for the shutting down of the government and not the Republicans. Again, there are some Republicans who feel the same way, but the true muscle behind this shutdown is the Democrats and not the Republicans.

Here’s what makes it so heinous: The bill that’s before the Senate right now is a spending bill. But while it has absolutely nothing to do with DACA (Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”), Democrats have stonewalled any kind of progress by insisting that unless some kind of immigration reform that addresses Dreamers is included, they will not vote.

And as far as “Dreamers” are concerned, we’re not talking about immigrants, we’re talking about the children of ILLEGAL immigrants. Obama’s legislation was not wise nor was it Constitutional, but it was strategic. You don’t grant citizenship to a non-citizen, but, then again, if you can issue them Green Cards and, in that way, provide them them the legal means to vote, now you have a greater chance of winning elections. There’s no denying that the offspring of those who entered this country illegally are in a bad spot, but whatever indignation may bubble up in the mind of the one on the outside looking in is best directed towards the careless parent who put their child in that position to begin with and not those who would enforce the law. And before you allow yourself to envision a collection of innocent adolescents, these Dreamers are far from softspoken or gracious. This past December there was a rally in Washington where close to 200 people – many of them “dreamers” – were demanding that Congress and Trump pass legislation that gives them full citizenship status.

They’re not citizens. They have no “right” to demand anything. But, emboldened by those who recognize the potential political gain that is accomplished by granting illegal immigrants the ability to vote, they are making their voices heard and it’s preposterous when you realize their whole premise is based on having entered the country illegally.1

While there’s more that can be said about this, let me conclude with an example of the hypocrisy that so often characterizes the Progressive platform. In 2013, Chuck Schumer declared that his party would never go to such extremes as to advocate a government shut down simply because they weren’t getting their way.

Well, obviously he didn’t mean what he said…

 

 

1. You saw this recently with California’s policy to grant Driver’s Licences to illegal immigrants. By doing so, you now make them eligible to vote. See New California Policy Opens Door to Illegal Immigrant Voting

Joy to the World and Yankee Doodle?

americanflagcardsHere’s a nice way to kick off a Sunday morning:

“This is a Christian nation, first in name, and secondly because of the many and mighty elements of a pure Christianity which have given it character and shaped its destiny from the beginning. It is pre-eminently the land of the Bible, of the Christian Church and the Christian Sabbath. It is the land of great and extensive and of-repeated revivals of a spiritual religion, – the land of a free conscience and of free speech, – the land of noble charities and of manifold and earnest efforts for the elevation and welfare of the human race. The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian Faith.”

This comes from a book entitled, “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.” It’s a compilation of quotes and documentation compiled by Benjamin Morris in 1864. It’s overwhelming to see just how much in terms of legislation, literature, documentation and architecture has to be ignored or discredited in order to arrive at a conclusion that says the great experiment of the republican form of government that is the United States is founded on anything other than the Absolute of God’s Word.

All that’s good, strong and pure about who we are as a nation is based on the Reality of Christ and if you’re diametrically opposed to that idea, know that the freedom you have to maintain and express those convictions comes from a Judeo Christian paradigm.

Christ’s Mass.

Christmas.

It is the most wonderful time of the year, but I’ll bet you never thought about the patriotic spin that can easily and logically be superimposed upon it from the standpoint of an American citizen.

Joy to the World indeed!

Jerusalem 2017

2017-12-05T142139Z_1_LYNXMPEDB412O_RTROPTP_4_USA-TRUMP-ISRAELPresident Trump made a campaign promise to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Given the way the militant Muslims have reacted as well as the manner in which the media has painted the administration as being reckless and irresponsible, it might come as a surprise that Trump is simply acting on a law that was passed in 1995 and affirmed by Congress just this past June.

What is irritating is the way in which some Muslims are saying that it will interfere with the “peace process.”

The “peace process…”

Our nation’s history has been punctuated repeatedly with acts of terror / war accomplished in the name of Allah. During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, you had the War with the Barbary Pirates. World War I was instigated by the Ottoman Empire and both the 20th and the 21st century have seen a despicable number of terrorist acts – again, all coming from a group of people who have the audacity to promote themselves as agents of peace in the face of President Trump moving our embassy to what represents the judicial and legitimate capital of Israel.

However flawed President Trump may be, it is his disregard for political correctness / cowardice that inspired me to vote for him. Neither Bush, Clinton nor Obama were willing to do it despite they’re being ethically and legislatively justified in doing so and frankly I’m glad that the US is positioning itself as a legitimate friend to Israel and not a subordinate to Islamic terror.

For more in-depth reading, feel free to peruse the following:

Advantage

If you click on the image to the right, you’ll be treated to a video where a number of people are told that they’re about to embark on a race. The prize is a $100.00 bill. Before the race begins, however, a number of questions are posed and if you’re able to answer in the affirmative, you’re allowed to take a couple of steps forward. Initially, the questions are processed as incidental and even comical. But the substance of those questions becomes evident as the advantages become clear.

I’ll let you know watch the video. Bottom line: Having a healthy family life translates to a number of psychological, emotional and even financial perks that put you in a strong position to succeed. There’s no doubt that you have an advantage over the one that doesn’t have a healthy family life and is forced to contend with the fallout that proceeds from two parents that can’t make their marriage work.

I think this is exceptional, but the one thing that gives me pause is the way in which it could be potentially utilized to promote the notion of white supremacy or institutional racism. And maybe this is because I’ve been listening to a lot of debates recently, but the word that got my attention in watching this was the word, “advantage.”

“Advantage” implies a systemic inequity. In other words, the rules of the game are being altered or dismissed in order to unfairly enhance your chances of success. One of the first questions that was posed was whether or not your parents were still married. This is not a dynamic that’s imposed, rather it’s chosen. It isn’t chosen by the offspring of broken marriages, but it’s a decision made by the parents of these kids often to the detriment of the children involved. It is the parents that are to be held accountable, therefore, and not a left leaning narrative that insists that an institutional form of racism is to blame.

Consider this: In 2015, over 70% of the babies born to the black community were born to unwed mothers. The abundance of absent fathers, according to Larry Elder, translates to more than just less than ideal family functions during the holidays:

Children in single-parent households are raised not only with economic, but also social and psychological, disadvantages. For instance, they are four times as likely as children from intact families to be abused or neglected; much likelier to have trouble academically; twice as prone to drop out of school; three times more likely to have behavioral problems; much more apt to experience emotional disorders; far likelier to have a weak sense right and wrong; significantly less able to delay gratification and to control their violent or sexual impulses; two-and-a-half times likelier to be sexually active as teens; approximately twice as likely to conceive children out-of-wedlock when they are teens or young adults; and three times likelier to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.

In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. As Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector has noted, “Illegitimacy is a major factor in America’s crime problem. Lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the crime rate.”

And while broken homes are a common denominator amidst delinquent teens as well as troubled adults, it also translates to the kind of economic hardships you would expect to find in a situation where a young woman is now having to drop out of High School in order to raise a child she didn’t plan on. Oftentimes, the child is raised by the grandmother until they’re old enough to take care of themselves. By that point, they’re accessing their environment and noticing the ones who appear to have money which is often the criminal element within their neighborhood and the cycle begins all over again.

Denzel Washington mentions this in a recent article where he’s quoted as saying, “If the father is not in the home, the boy will find a father in the streets,” he said. “I saw it in my generation and every generation before me, and every one since.”

“If the streets raise you, then the judge becomes your mother and prison becomes your home,” he added.

According to The New York Daily News, Mr. Washington expanded on his answer when pressed by reporters, saying, “It starts with how you raise your children. If a young man doesn’t have a father figure, he’ll go find a father figure.”.

In this video, the anamoly that’s being observed is not so much an “advantage” as much as it’s a “result.” No, it’s not fair, nor is it healthy. But the root cause is not systemic, it’s moral. Those that come from a healthy home life may be more prepared to succeed when compared to their broken-home counterparts, but it’s an emotional / psychological foundation that is based on a moral paradigm and not a systemic mandate. From that perspective, therefore, it’s not an “advantage” that best defines those who are able to approach life sans the burden of the psychological scars and emotional gaps caused by an absentee father, nor is it a “privilege.” It’s a consequence of character – or the lack thereof – on the part of the one who would choose to be a male as opposed to a man.

Trump’s Lies

Screen Shot 2017-11-12 at 8.24.07 PMThe New York Times is one of several news sources that have been almost entirely negative when it comes to President Donald Trump. Like many liberal leaning media outlets, during the campaign, they spent the better part of a year in a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Trump was not qualified to be President for any one of number of reasons.

In the end, they were overruled by the Electoral College and the American Republic told the Obama administration to clear out its desk. Since then, the media, now painfully aware that its hold on popular opinion is nowhere near what they thought it was, is determined to undermine the Trump administration.

It’s difficult not to sense that there’s a dispostion championed by the Left that says if you can’t win an election, then you steal it. And if you can’t steal it, then do your best to ruin the outcome.

Earlier this year, the NYT published a front page article that consisted of one massive block of text that supposedly represented every lie Trump has uttered since the beginning of his administration. It’s an imposing looking piece and initially intimidating in that you can’t help but wonder if in the midst of all these indictments, there’s isn’t an element of truth. But upon closer inspection, it becomes evident rather quickly that this article is nothing more than just yet another part of the media’s resolve to deploy a “dirty glacier” approach to current events in order to feel justified in portraying Trump as a fiend.

The fact of the matter is, you can be wrong and not be guilty of lying. It’s only when you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary that you can be rightfully accused of being a liar. With President Trump, he exaggerates in some instances but to accuse him of lying is inappropriate, especially when you look at some of these indictments and realize that it’s the NYT who’s lying and not Trump.

In the end, at the bare minimum, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that there’s a more comprehensive perspective to consider with each supposed accusation. With minimal “digging” you can uncover facts and truths that the NYT seems determined to either overlook or dismiss as irrelevant.

If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, your justification better be more than just an intentionally casual analysis of the situation. Then again, if you don’t expect anyone to pick up where you made a point of leaving off, perhaps your approach is purposeful which thus qualifies you as truly sinister and not merely irresponsible.

I hope that’s not the case…

Feel free to click here or on the image to the right and view a spreadsheet that details each of the NYT’s accusations and the rebuttal represented by a more thorough review of the facts that are readily accessible.

Also, below are ten questions I was asked to respond to as part of an internet based radio program hosted by Jack Watts. You can get an idea of what prompted this project and the conclusions that were drawn by reading through both the questions and the responses.

Go God, boo devil!

1) What prompted you to put this project together?

Converstation with you (Jack Watts). Initially a little intimidated but then determined to find out just how credible the accusations were.

2) Does Trump lie? Is the NYT and the liberal media justified in calling him a liar?

In order to qualify as a liar, it has to be proven that you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary. You can be wrong, you can exaggerate and still not be guilty of lying. The NYT doesn’t attempt to make that distinction. If Trump is wrong or if he’s stretching the truth, he’s demonized as a liar even when that kind of accusation is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

3) Why do you think the press is so determined to paint Trump as a villian?

Two reasons: First off, Trump was not supposed to have won. For an entire year, the press engaged in a campaign to destroy a Trump victory and even at one point predicting Hillary to be by 85% (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html). They were terribly wrong and while they proved to be flawed in their predictions, they simultaneously proved that they don’t have the kind of influence over the political process that they thought they did. The result was embarassing as well as telling as far as what their true agenda was.

Secondly, Trump is not a politician and therefore does not play games as far as sacrificing results on the altar of polls and mindless processes. That makes him a very effective force in dismantling a lot of what Progressives have in place as well as what their mandate would dictate. Therefore, Trump must be stopped.

4) What is “truthful hyperbole?”

It’s a phrase that Trump uses in his book “The Art of the Deal.” It’s how he describes ethically exaggerating things in order to sell his product or platform.

5) You went through over 100 accusations made by the NYT stating that Trump lied? Were there any that really stood out? Why?

Lockheed F-35, NYT apology, Obamacare

The Lockheed F-35 is a military aircraft that was the subject of a deal Trump made with the company that wound up strengthening our military while saving a substantial amount of money. The NYT refers to this scenario repeatedly and insists the Trump contributed nothing and that the cuts were already in place. But Lockeed makes it clear that Trump was a significant part of the process and the Times isn’t accurate in calling him a liar let alone accusing him repeatedly.

The NYT ran an ad in the aftermath of the election that said it would “reflect on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on America and the world honestly.” While the words “We’re sorry” are never articulated, it’s obvious the NYT was confessing that there was room for improvement in the way they reported the news.

Obamacare is a hot mess. But the press will intentionally overlook certain aspects of it in order to maintain the idea that it’s a homerun. Consequently, when Trump criticizes it, the NYT insists that he’s lying. For example, when Trump says that Obamacare covers very few people, the NYT responds by saying that Obamacare increased coverage by a new of about 20 million. What they don’t tell you is that just because you sign up doesn’t mean you’re covered. You have to first pay your first month’s premium. That in and of itself dramatically affects who is truly being covered.

6) After having engaged this project, do you see the press as merely bitter or is there something more sinister behind their efforts to undermine Trump?

Definitely sinister. One does not have to “dig” much at all in order to secure a more comprehensive perspective. I mention at the top of the site that, if nothing else, what I’ve done demonstrates that there is always another side, another set of data that dramatically affects the conclusions the average reader is going to walk away with given the limited account the Times would assert as being the bottom line. When you see this being done over and over again, it becomes obvious that there is an agenda in place that govers the way in which the news is going to be reported. It will not be fair, it will not be accurate. In short, it will be intentionally crafted to undermine the President and promote a legislative and cultural paradigm that is godless, amoral and devoid of personal responsibility.

7) How should a Trump supporter respond to all of the vitriol?

John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Rarely does a person shape their convictions according to merely what they know. Their mindset represents a combination of facts and feelings – feelings crafted according to a lifetime of experiences that you’re not going to affect in the context of a single paragraph.

And what makes it more challenging is that the more emotionally invested you are in a lie, the less impact the Truth is going to make. The bottom line is that the true essence of this contest is spiritual. Only God can change a person’s heart. Even if you win an argument, all you’re doing is increasing their resolve to be better armed with more compelling talking points in the future. To change their mind – to affect real change – you’ve got to fight with the only weapons that make a difference and that’s the Power and the heart changing Utility of the Holy Spirit.

8) You hear a lot about the possibility of Russian interference with the election collusion on the part of the Trump campaign with Russia. Did the NYT indict Trump at all in this particular article about that?

More than once. It’s part of the Progressive Playbook right now and it will continue to be until it blows up in their face. You might even argue that it already has by virtue of the way the Clinton campaign was revealed as having given Russia a sizeable foothold into American Urianium mining (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html).

Trump’s having colluded with Russian elements in order to affect the outcome of the election is nothing more than an attempt to justify Trump having won while simultaneously portray Trump as a fiend. We’re 11 months into the allegations and there is still no evidence because there is no evidence. The thing that is disconcerting, however, is that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the mind of the Democrat party. If there isn’t evidence to support their claim, no doubt they’ll make an attempt to manufacture some.

9) Between ANTIFA, violent protests at universties where conservative commentators are scheduled to talk, the contoversy with the NFL – does America seem fractured to you and, if so, how does it get put back together again?

I think you’ve got to be able to sound intelligent when you present what constitutes a truthful rebuttal. You have to be familiar with the fact that this is a game of chess. It’s not about substance as much as it’s about “feelings.” We’re no longer asking what’s “right,” we’re asking what’s “Constitutional.” For that reason, again, the real contest is a spiritual contest…

Case in point: The Homosexual Agenda is based on the fact that “everyone has the right to be happy.” That’s true. You see that in our Declaration of Independence. But where does that right come from? According to the Declaration of Independence, we appeal to a Divine Standard for that right. Moreover, one’s right to be happy is subordinate to one’s reponsibility to be moral. But who defines what’s moral? Either God is your Absolute, or you are your own absolute which is both eternally lethal and practically unsustainable. Regardless of how you approach it, the underlying question is “Who defines what’s right?” And it’s because of that dynamic that our the only real Solution is a national revival (2 Chron 7:14).

10) If you were to make a prediction as to how the Trump administration is going to be perceived by future generations, what would you say?

Provided that Christians are able to rise to the occasion and leverage the opportunity represented by a Republican administration and pray for God’s Intervention, I think God through Trump can dismantle a lot of the damaging legislation that Obama has instituted and the tension he has amplified. If a true revival can occur, I think the Trump Administration will be remembered the same way as a truly great timeframe. Not because of who Trump was but because of what God did through Trump as far as getting our nation back on track.

And I think that’s the bottom line now and that’s always been the bottom line. Psalm 20:7:

“Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (see also 2 Chron 7:14)

That’s always been the Solution. And it’s not so much God showing up and changing things through miraculous burning bush type episodes, as much as it’s godly individuals living out their faith in a way that convinces people that God is Who He truly claims to be and true success is measured in terms of one’s obedience to Him and being a conduit of the Power He makes available.

The Black Robe Regiment

theres-a-time-to-pray-and-a-time-to-fightThe question on the table is: “Does being a patriot equate to being a Christian and vice versa?”

Let’s start by asking that question.

The answer is, “No!”

My definition of a sound government and the extent I go to defend and champion my convictions do not translate to a relationship with Christ. Nor does the way I vote  change my status before God, in terms of the grace He offers and the grace I need.

However…

God makes very clear that I’m to be engaged in the political process. It is not just a matter of being “interested” as much as it’s about being obedient.

1 Timothy 2:1-4 says that I’m to pray for those in positions of authority. 1 Chronicles 12:32 references the men of Issachar as being the smallest contingent of those who joined King David as able bodied servicemen, but they’re described as “men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” In that way, they’re were just as helpful to David as those tribes who were greater in number, if not more so because they understood the current political climate and recognized David as a godly element that needed to be served and supported.

Today, the political lines that have been drawn are vivid and to be either indifferent or ignorant is not just irresponsible, it’s disobedient.

Beneath the flag of the Democrat party you have abortion, same sex marriage, the elimination of any sort of Christian presence in the marketplace and a doctrine of entitlement that is neither financially sustainable let alone Biblical.

Abortion is touted as something that falls under the heading of a “woman’s right to choose.”

Agreed.

A woman does have the right to choose. She has the right to choose whether or not she’s intimate with a man and risk conceiving a child that she’s not willing to raise. That is the choice she’s entitled to make –  not whether or not she chooses to end the life of the human being that’s growing inside of her simply because she doesn’t want to take responsibility for her actions.

Are there exceptions? Perhaps. But the vast majority of abortions that are done have nothing to do with the health of the mother as much as it is the desire to avoid raising her baby. And of course, the father of said infant is rarely discussed in these conversations which further reinforces the point that this topic is not about “family planning” or “pro choice” or whatever noble sounding verbiage is used to disguise the true nature of what abortion is really all about.

The homosexual agenda has morphed into more than just the lawful practice of same sex marriage. Now we’re got the transgender issue where we’re being forced to accept their decadence as a legally endorsed behavior. It is now to the point where you can be arrested if you don’t refer to a transgender individual by their preferred sexual moniker.

The doctrine of entitlement says that my ethnicity translates to a collection of financial and legislative subsidies. My work ethic, my morality and anything else that might be considered to qualify whether or not I merit any assistance is dismissed as irrelevant and I am left alone to demand money and exemptions based on the notion that I am being unfairly treated both legally and economically.

In 1955, 25% of Black Americans were born out of wedlock. The number today is 73%. A child raised without a father is five times more likely to be poor and commit crime. Nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in jail. Over 40% of black kids drop out of High School. When you combine all those statistics, it’s not difficult at all to see that the reason many minorities struggle economically is not because of a prejudiced system, but because of an immoral mindset.

The Black Robe Regiment” was the name that the British placed on the courageous and patriotic American clergy during the Founding Era. Men like Peter Muhlenberg zealously labored to connect the practical dots that existed between the Word of God and America’s quest for freedom not only in their sermons, but also on the battlefield. 

The British were highly critical of Muhlenberg and his like minded associates within the “Black Robe Regiment” to the point where it was said that, “If Christian ministers had not preached and prayed, there might have been no revolution as yet – or had it broken out, it might have been crushed.1

While you’re never going to gauge the Biblical substance or accuracy of a person’s relationship with Christ based on political convictions alone, you can access their regard for Scripture in the way they either apply or ignore God’s Truth in the way it applies to moral issues. And if the political party you align yourself with champions legislative favors for behaviors that are identified specifically in the Bible as being wrong, then you’ve got an inconsistency that can only be explained by either a limited understanding of – or a fundamental disagreement with – God’s Word. However you might want to explain that to your human critics might be perceived as credible, but any attempts to refute the Substance of God’s Word directed towards its Author are bound to, not only fall short, but be revealed as prideful, perverse and totally unacceptable (Prov 1:7).

But here’s the thing:

Love in the absence of Truth is nothing more than lust. However noble or intense your desire may be for someone, it if’s rooted in something the Bible defines as selfish and perverse, it’s not love. It’s lust and it will prove to be lethal (see Ps 101:3; Jas 1:14-15; 1 Jn 2:15-16).

Compassion in the absence of Truth is nothing more than favoritism. Compassion, by definition, is the practice of extending mercy where justice would otherwise be exacted. But in order for compassion to resonate as such, the Character of its Source has to be noble and just. When Christ extends mercy, He does so having both honored and fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17). When a politician makes an exception for someone’s illegal behavior in order to secure votes, that’s not compassion. That’s favoritism and a perversion of the Truth as opposed to an expression of it.

Charity is the absence of Truth is nothing more than a subsidy. There’s a difference between someone asking for help who wants to improve their situation and someone who’s asking for the resources they need in order to make it worse. Subsidizing someone’s moral and practical failures contributes to their pain and suffering and is the antithesis of charity (see Prov 10:23).

However political charlatans and their base may want to parade noble sounding verbiage before their constitutens and those they want to impress, the true nature of their platform is obvious. But you’re not going to change their minds or the minds of those that are drawn to them by simply arguing with them.

You have to become a part of the “Black Robe Regiment” and, like those that fought for our nation’s independence, fight now for her dependence on the One Who gave her the the freedom she sought to begin with.

This is a Christian nation, first in name, and secondly because of the many and mighty elements of a pure Christianity which have given it character and shaped its destiny from the beginning. It is pre-eminently the land of the Bible, of the Christian Church and the Christian Sabbath. It is the land of great and extensive and of-repeated revivals of a spiritual religion, – the land of a free conscience and of free speech, – the land of noble charities and of manifold and earnest efforts for the elevation and welfare of the human race. The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian Faith.2

It’s no longer enough to win an argument or even a court case. The fight that needs to be both fought and won is the fight that is waged in a person’s heart and only God can win that contest.

Be ready to explain what you believe and why and be able to do it without sounding lame. Know enough about what’s going on in the world to know both how to converse and how to pray. But pray! Be like those in the “Black Robe Regiment” who fought both on their knees and on their feet knowing that while their courage was important, it was their faith that was absolutely necessary and it was the way in which God honored their prayers that qualified their sacrifice and their struggle as both noble and victorious.

 

1. Alpheus Packard, “Nationality,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository (London: Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1856), Vol. XIII p.193, Article VI. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335

2. “Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (1864)” by Benjamin Franklin Morris, Google Books, accessed February 1, 2022

When does Statistical Economic Disparity NOT Indicate Racism?

youtubeFreedom left unchecked by that which is moral results in a scenario where you’re no longer asking if it’s “right,” you’re now just asking, “Is it Constitutional?”

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right.

What’s happening in the NFL is a situation where they are simply reaping what they have sown. Faced with the tens of millions of dollars lost in advertising, owners are now compelled to tell players that they must stand. That only makes the situation more convolluted because now you’re “forcing” players to take a stand when they should do so out of respect for the flag, not because they’re being compelled to do so. But the real question is still not being asked: “Are you right, not just in the way you voice your convictions, but also in the substance of your accusations?” In both instances the answer is a resounding, “No!”

It’s never been a question of whether or not they had the right to take a knee during the National Anthem. The question was:

  • Whether or not they were right in demonizing the very paradigm that gave them the right they were exercising in that moment, number one…
  • And, number two, are you right in insisting that the entire law enforcement community is biased against black men?

Recently I was listening to a debate and there was a question posed that I thought was brilliant because of the way it reveals the true essence of today’s activst as being fundamentally flawed. The question was, “When does statistical economic disparity NOT indicate racism?” For a moment, the normally talkative panel was quiet. It was a brilliant question (click here to watch the debate in its entirety. Go to 52:53 to witness the actual question). You could just as easily ask, “When is the use of lethal force on the part of a white police officer NOT motivated by racism when the suspect in question is black?” In both instances, you’re compelled to think beyond the knee jerk reactions of those who’ve convinced themselves that America as an institution is racist and instead, base your answer on the moral tenor of the individual in question.

Rarely do activists concede the statistical realities in terms of how 41% of black kids drop out of High School or that over 70% of the babies born to the black community in 2015 were born to unwed mothers. And as far as the claim that blacks are targeted, harrased, arrested and shot for no reason other than the color of their skin fails the litmus test of objective stats and studies by non-partisan services. In short, “racism” has become the smoke screen used for both political gain and as a means to veil the immorality and criminal mindset that prevails in the inner cities. So, when you see Colin Kaepernick or anyone who thinks like him, take a knee during the National Anthem or link arms to demonstrate solidarity to protest social injustice, know that the prevailing injustice that’s occuring is the way in which black communities promote a culture that conditions its members to make bad decisions and then either blame a fictitous oppressive force or expect someone else to clean up their mess. It’s not fair to their young people, it’s not fair to the police who are sworn to serve and protect and it’s not fair to those who sacrificed so much – both white and black – to ensure that a black man could become President or a black woman could become Attorney General.

Their platform is flawed, their manner is belligerent and their belief that they represent the sentiments of, not only their fans, but the majority of America is dangerously ill founded. Not because it represents a threat to their fan base, but because it constitutes an irreparable breach between them and the ones who buy tickets to watch their games. It’s a shame, but then again, perhaps its necessary in order to reveal the truth behind the headlines and the poison behind the protests.

A Racist Piece of Cloth

Shannon-SharpeShannon Sharpe is a sports commentator who, at one point, was a professional football player for the Denver Broncos.

He recently went on a bit of rant concerning the way in which much of the NFL is taking a knee during the National Anthem. At one point he said that, “…the flag is nothing but a piece of cloth that no one fights for.” Feel free to click on the graphic to the right and view the entire piece.

During his discourse, he attempts to reinforce his point by asking if our nation, in terms of patriotism, equality and opportunity, is really all that?

The answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

First of all, we are the only country that fought a war to end the sin, the stain and the inhumane stink of slavery. Over 350,000 caucasians died to emancipate the black race that was in chains. The 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th granted the full rights of citizenship to slaves and the 15th amendment ensured that all citizens, including people of color, were allowed to vote.1 It was a Republican congress that passed those laws, it was a Republican president that lead the philosophical and military charge that defeated a slavery and it was a Republican majority that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2

It’s important to underscore these facts because Shannon Sharpe, and those who think like him, are reading from a script that, while it goes beyond party lines, is nevertheless part of the Democrat / Progressive playbook that intentionally brushes aside the efforts and the sacrifice made by America to ensure that the Declaration of Independence resonates as a document that applies to all people. If you make a point of asking the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at all the wrong conclusions.The Republic, the freedom, the paradigm that we have in place today as Americans is a decidedly American dynamic that was drafted by American statesmen and purchased with American blood.

The limitations and the economic disparity that Shannon would point to that, in his mind, represent systemic flaws in America’s design and character stem more from cultural immorality than systemic oppression. 41% of black Americans drop out of High School. In 2015, more than 70% of the babies born to the black community were born to un-wed mothers. Those two statistics have absolutely nothing to do with supposed police brutatlity or white supremacy. Those are symptomatic of broken families, broken lives and a lifetime spent in minimum wage paying jobs because of poor choices and not a lack of opportunity (click here to read “Racism: Absolutely Not!”).

It’s ironic that Sharpe condemns the flag as being a piece of cloth that no one fights for when it’s the right to free speech – a right that is represented by that flag – that he is exercising that very moment.

It will be interesting to see just how far the NFL and professional sports in general are willing to compromise themselves by insisting that the Progressive school of thought is acceptable to majority of America. While refusing to stand for the National Anthem is the action we’re being forced to tolerate, it’s the overarching message behind that action that serves as the mantra of the Progressive moment and the Democrat party in general. It’s veiled most of the time in the context of words like “equality” and “compassion,” but in the end, it’s a re-tooling of America based on a Humanistic philosophy, an amoral approach to what’s right and a militant methodology.

Professional sports, many college campuses, Hollywood and the media – they’re all being compelled to reveal their true colors and I’m hoping that the dramatic loss of ratings, advertising income and public support will compel them to realize they’re not in the majority and all those who are blindly following will open their eyes and see the toxic wasteland that is Progressive thought.

 

 

1. “The Civil War”, “The Senate’s Story”, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm, accessed October 4, 2017
2. “FOX NEWS: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY”, https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fox-news-secret-history-democratic-party/, accessed October 4, 2017

The Real Contest

Before moving to the United States in 1984, Os was a freelance reporter with the BBC. Since then he has been a Guest Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies, a Guest Scholar and Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum and the EastWest Institute in New York. From 1986 to 1989, Os served as Executive Director of the Williamsburg Charter Foundation, a bicentennial celebration of the First Amendment. In this position he helped to draft “The Williamsburg Charter” and later “The Global Charter of Conscience,” which was published at the European Union Parliament in 2012. Os has spoken at dozens of the world’s major universities and spoken widely to political and business conferences on many issues, including religious freedom, across the world. He is currently a senior fellow at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and lives with his wife, Jenny, in the Washington, DC, area. (read more at RZIM.org)

359278-contestI don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)

So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight –  how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?

I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.

More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.

If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.

Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”

Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”

But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.

At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.”  Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1

If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.

If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government. Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“). Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”). And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787“:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”2 

Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.

And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.

The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.

And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.

That is the real contest.

1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017 2. “The Records of the Federal convention of 1787 / ed. by Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911”

2. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227;view=1up;seq=487, accessed October 4, 2017)

Hate Speech

hate-speech-is-not-free-speechHate Speech

That’s something you hear a lot these days and unless you’re prepared to quickly dismantle that tactic, it can absorb a lot of time and emotional energy and the real issue gets buried.

Fact is, it’s brilliant tactic. In order to avoid being chastised, I’m going to assert the notion that I’m being victimized. The content of the criticism is subordinated to the supposedly sinister motivation behind it and just like that, I’m the victim and anyone who would be critical of me is a villain.

Whether it’s homosexuality, the transgender issue or any one of a number of other moral train wrecks – topics of discussion are circumvented by the deployment of tactics that are designed to shift the focus off of the accused and instead challenge the character of the one making the accusation.

“You can’t judge me” is another such tactic. The fact of the matter is, we’re supposed judge one another. The often misquoted passage in Scripture that says “Do not judge” contains more than three words. It’s Matthew 7:1-2 and the message is not to be silent, rather it’s not to be hypocritical.

Other verses like John 5:24,  Ephesians 5:11 and 2 Timothy 4:2 make it evident that we’re helping each other by highlighting those areas that constitute blind spots. “Judging” ourselves and those around us according to the Standard of Scripture helps us keep it between the lines and avoiding those things that would otherwise result in a big mess.

What we’re seeing in our culture, as far as wisdom and morality being dismissed as wicked and hateful, isn’t especially new. The Bible is loaded with instances where those who were being rebuked attempted to dismiss God’s Final Word as being an antiquated and heinous. On more than one occasion, Israel scoffed and sneered at those who spoke up on God’s behalf (Jer 17:15-16) and some tried to twist the word of the prophets into something evil.

But God doesn’t play that:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Is 5:20)

Should you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to speak up and someone tries to shut you down by accusing you of being “hateful” and “judgmental,” respond to them by saying:

How I ‘feel’ about what you’re doing is secondary to what God says. If you want to dismiss the Authority of Scripture, that’s your choice. But don’t try to shift the focus off of what you’re doing to what I’m supposedly thinking and miss what God is saying.

 

If they don’t believe in God or they want to question the Authority of Scripture, awesome! Now you’ve got a conversation. Before all you had was a tactic. At least this way, you’ve got them conceding the fact that the only Absolute they’re willing to acknowledge is the absolute of themselves. And regardless of how passionate or dogmatic they may be, that kind of self absorbed disposition doesn’t look or sound good and may lead to an opening where you can lead them to a place where they’re talking to God instead of ignoring Him.