Look This Up!

/in , , /by
Do me a favor and open up ChatGPT. Ask “Is the current poverty level in the US lower than it’s been in 50 years and, if so, can you provide the statistics to prove it?”
Contemplate what you find.
Next, I want you to ask ChatGPT “Is the current crime rate lower now than it was during the Biden Administration?”
Try this one:” Have illegal border crossings diminished significantly in the United States since the beginning of President Trump’s 2025 administration?”
Finally, “Is the current inflation rate in the US lower than the peak inflation rates during President Biden’s term in office?”
The responses you get explain why I voted for President Trump and why I will vote for those who support him in the midterms.
You’re listening to a party that has been able to successfully distract attention away from their failed policies by manufacturing a reality where anyone with the capacity to reveal their failures can be dismissed by assaulting their character.
President Trump is not my Savior, nor do I support him because of his past indiscretions. I support him because he champions policies that work. Your party has no platform apart from their disdain for the current President.
The Modern Day Democrat stands on a pile of excuses and complaints, desperately trying to validate their political existence by insisting that anyone who subscribes to an ideal is a hypocrite and anyone who succeeds is corrupt.
See you at the polls…!

Iran

/in , , , /by

This was a comment I made in response to a video where Secretary Hegseth responds to a congressman that referred to the current situation in Iran as a quagmire. Here’s what I wrote:

Why is it that Dems only applaud military missions when undertaken by someone in their own party?

I think it’s reprehensible to undermine the mission of those who have volunteered to serve, and then be deployed with a definitive goal and able to report legitimate successes, only to be compromised by a dirtbag politician who only wants to figure out yet another way to piss on our troops, our country, our President, and all those who support him.

If there was ever clearer reason to attack and defeat an enemy that has been actively crying for our destruction for 47 years and whose doctrine dictates the destruction of those who wage war against Allah, it is here and it is now.

If your perspective on militant Muslims is somehow vague and ignorant, in part because you’re looking for yet another reason to criticize the current administration, you’re blind, lost, and arrogant.

That’s neither a political criticism, nor a subjective assessment. We’ve been dealing with militant Muslims since Jefferson’s administration and to favor them over your own country and justify by saying it’s a pointless endeavor and poorly executed is to ignore the results, dismiss the context, and root for an ideology that wants you to cease breathing.

A friend of mine responded and I have his response as well as my rebuttal documented below.

comment response
Bruce, this current President is 100% responsible for this nonsense in Iran.

To say that President Trump is “responsible for this nonsense in Iran” is to ignore, not just centuries of history, but even modern day manifestations of radical Islam to dominate and destroy anyone that doesn’t worship Allah. With Iran, you’re not dealing with a country, you’re dealing with a creed that is dedicated to the destruction of the West.

It’s specified in the Qur’an. Their doctrine demands the destruction of non-Muslims:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

In my original post, I referenced how America has been contending with militant Muslims since the administration of Thomas Jefferson. In addition:

Bottom line: Orthodox Muslim doctrine specifies an unrelenting attack against those who are not Muslims. It has been a present resolve for over two centuries, particularly targeting the US. So, to even suggest that President Trump is responsible for creating the current tension in Iran is to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist apart from the one who is actually doing something about it.

The latter half of sura 9:5 commands,

“But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees…

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).1

A Modern Day Democrat can’t condemn militant Islam as evil because that implies a standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – something a MDD maintains as non-existent.
The Obama agreement that also included many countries in support, was the EXACT same thing that tRump tried to put in place AGAIN in his first attempt at a new deal with Iran. He screwed this up. There should be no problem in that region. He created it, you and I are paying for it.

You want to pretend that that JCPOA somehow contained radical Muslim thought and eliminated both Iran’s ability as well as their resolve to build a nuclear weapon. The agreement took effect on January 16, 2016. Yet, Iran never stopped being a leading sponsor of terrorist activity…

In 2016, Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah, as part of an effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. Iran views the Assad regime in Syria as a crucial ally and Syria and Iraq as crucial routes to supply weapons to Hizballah, Iran’s primary terrorist partner. Iran has facilitated and coerced, through financial or residency enticements, primarily Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan to participate in the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown in Syria. Iranian-supported Shia militias in Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians and Iranian forces have directly backed militia operations in Syria with armored vehicles, artillery, and drones. (UN Refugee Agency)

In 2018, Israel discovered a half ton of nuclear weaponization files revealing how Iran had continued their nuclear program after having agreed to suspend all such activities.

The JCPOA is an illustration of how the Liberal mindset is more preoccupied with the absence of tension than the actual presence of peace. In the absence of truth, peace is nothing more than being complicit with whatever wrongdoing is being accomplished. It’s either a coward’s way of ignoring a problem, or a fool’s way of convincing themselves that they’ve solved it.

Bottom line: The JCPOA and President Trump’s MOU have one major difference: Accountability. The JCPOA relied on inspections and the word of an enemy that meant absolutely nothing. Trump’s MOU has the force of America’s military behind it with a comprehensive plan to financially starve the militants out of existence and rebuild Iran in a way that overwhelms the militant evil that currently dominates that area.
War is wrong.

It depends on why it’s being waged. The Revolutionary War was not “wrong,” nor was the War of 1812, or the Civil War, or WWI, WWII, etc. Evil is wrong. If a war is being waged in order to take what isn’t yours, that’s wrong. But those who would oppose that kind of enemy are absolutely correct in fighting back and defeating that enemy.

It’s a noble sounding sentiment to say that “War is wrong.” But in doing so, you condemn anyone who has ever served in the military as either a fool or a fiend, which is both insulting and reprehensible. At the same time, it’s perfectly logical when it comes from a mindset that doesn’t want to acknowledge the reality of an objective moral standard. You can’t condemn something as being “wrong,” if you want to simultaneously say that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe. While that is not necessarily the prevailing mindset of the Modern Day Democrat, it is nevertheless a common conviction within their ranks.
This Hegseth guy is a loose cannon, a firehose gone rogue. Not a fan. It’s disgusting that these problems are being created by this administration and then they (and it seems you) blame the Dems.

I don’t the blame the Democrats for creating the problem, but I do hold them responsible for pretending that the problem is nothing more than a tension that can be eliminated through meaningless negotiations.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

How can you tell if the Muslim that’s running for office is a militant? Or, how you can tell if a militant Muslim is being honest when they sign a treaty?

You can’t.

  • Taqiyya is an Islamic concept that means “prudence” or “religious dissimulation”. It allows a person to hide or deny their true religious beliefs and outwardly conform to a hostile environment when facing credible threats of severe injury or death. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/taqiyyah)
  • “Tamkeen” is Arabic term most commonly used in political Islam for the long-term strategy of empowerment, institutional entrenchment, and placing members in key governance and societal positions.

Militant Muslims have terrorized Western Civilization and America in particular for centuries. Moderate Muslims are conflicted in their ability to denounce orthodox Muslims because it’s not a political dispute that fuels the militant Muslim’s resolve. It is a religious zeal that has targeted America since the 18th century (Shores of Tripoli). See also Western Leaders: Your Time is Up.

Secretary Hegseth is a “loose cannon” only in the mind of someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge the way a problem is being addressed and would instead pretend that the problem itself doesn’t exist.
It’s not a party thing, it’s cow-towing to large corporate interests. It’s about the redistribution of money upwards into the hands of the already wealthy people and corporations (read: socialism for these two parts of our society).

To reduce this conversation to a commercial for Socialism is fundamentally flawed. It’s an attempt to distract attention away from a creed that has been promoting terrorism and openly declared itself a threat to Western Civilization and reduce it to nothing more than an opportunity for corrupt individuals to make some money.

1. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19

Two Mottos

/in , , , , /by

The political conversations that you’re hearing these days can often be categorized beneath two mottos:

  • In God We Trust
  • You Can’t Force Your Beliefs on Me

Either the individual is accountable to something greater than themselves, or a person is accountable to no one but themselves.

By using phrases that imply a form of oppression, the Modern Day Democrat is able to distract attention away from their resolve to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences where the truth is based more on how you feel rather than what is real.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos…

Recent polls suggest conservatives are more likely than liberals to support bans on politicized practices, even when both groups view the practice as similarly immoral (e.g., abortion opposition among pro-life conservatives vs. pro-life liberals). We propose a novel theory to explain this phenomenon based on people’s moral philosophies. Nine studies found that conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism, whereas liberals tend to endorse moral relativism, and that moral absolutists were more likely to support banning practices they deem immoral. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter™) used more absolute language than liberals, particularly in tweets containing morality-related words (Study 1). In a data set spanning 59 countries and 30 years, conservatives more often endorsed moral absolutism over relativism (Study 2). Studies 3-4 identified a need for closure as an underlying mechanism. Studies 5-9 documented a downstream consequence of moral absolutism: support for banning practices one deems immoral. The link between the perceived immorality of a practice and support for banning it was stronger among conservatives, even after controlling for attitude extremity (Study 5). Moral absolutism predicted support for banning practices deemed immoral even after controlling for regulatory focus, deontological thinking, individual and binding foundations, ideological extremity (Study 6), and attitude strength of the politicized practices (Study 7). Liberals and conservatives exposed to moral relativism reduced their support for banning practices that they opposed (Study 8-9). Our theory linking ideology to moral absolutism versus relativism can help explain why the link between perceived immorality and support for bans varies across the ideological spectrum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). (PubMed)

No Bottom Lines

Anytime you converse with a Modern Day Democrat, you want to begin by clarifying how the define the concept of truth. Ask them if they agree with the idea that what’s true for one person may not be true for another, and they will most likely agree.

You see that supported in the 2025 study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin where it examined the relationship between political ideology and moral absolutism vs. moral relativism across nine different studies (see sidebar).

The study found that:

  • Conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism.
  • Liberals tended to endorse moral relativism.
  • Conservatives used more absolute moral language than liberals.
  • The pattern appeared not just in U.S. data but in a dataset covering 59 countries over 30 years.
  • People who endorsed moral absolutism were more likely to support banning practices they considered immoral.

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

You see that dynamic elaborated on in a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR (see sidebar). In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus.

From a distance, this looks healthy. You don’t want to be so resolute with your opinions, that you disqualify yourself from being able to learn and grow based on a more comprehensive perspective.

But there’s a difference between being open minded for the sake of becoming more aligned with what’s accurate, and posing as someone who’s open minded in order to promote the idea that there are no absolutes.

Intellectual Icebergs

This is where Katherine Maher and the Democrat party are revealed as being an intellectual iceberg in that they appear approachable on the surface, but hidden below the water line is something genuinely sinister.

If truth is relative, then…

  • I am my own absolute – my right to be happy means I get to make up my own rules and I don’t have to answer to anything other than what I’m comfortable with
  • I am a victim – I may be different or damaged, but I am never wrong. When I’m confronted with a reality I can’t dispute without selfish or foolish, by pretending to be in pain, I can avoid having to explain myself or take responsibility for my actions.
  • I am justified – I can silence anyone who disagrees with me in that they are not merely mistaken, but genuinely immoral because they’re not telling the “truth,” which qualifies them as a liar.

But, if truth is relative, then…

  • You are a hypocrite – you can’t logically disagree with someone without violating your own premise that the truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
  • You are conflicted – when confronted with something that is obviously wrong (a mother killing their own child), you can’t condemn it because of the way you’ve dismissed the reality of objective truth and the obvious difference between right and wrong.
  • You are meaningless – if there is no right or wrong, then your words are just mechanical noises that have no real meaning.

Even in the speech given by Katherine Maher, you see the unsustainable aspect of her platform…

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.1

You can’t say, “…the truth of the matter is” without contradicting everything you’ve said up to that point by asserting the idea that there are “many different truths.”

But this is the Modern Day Democrat: A conflicted and meaningless hypocrite posing as a persecuted activist that’s justified in silencing anyone who has the capacity to reveal them for who they are.

An Unacceptable Mindset

On the surface, they are either outraged or oppressed (I am a victim). They are indifferent to what’s real or indisputable because of the way they have empowered themselves to dismiss whatever it is they don’t want to hear (I am my own absolute). And anyone who disagrees can be mocked, maligned, and even murdered, not because they’re wrong, but because they’re a threat to a manufactured reality that can’t be sustained (I am justified).

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s not so much an objection to a personality or a policy. The same policies could be championed by a Democrat (deportation of illegal immigrants) and they would be applauded as bold leadership. Whether it’s President Trump or any other Conservative, the personality is irrelevant because the same accusations would be made regardless of the individual in the charge.

If the philosophy that drives the legislation includes the idea that the individual is ultimately accountable to something greater than themselves, that is an unacceptable mindset. Regardless of what’s being said or who’s saying it, if it’s coming from a perspective that doesn’t allow a person to proclaim themselves as their own bottom line, it is dismissed first as stupid, then immoral and, ultimately criminal (see the “SIC-ness of the Left“).

I am Never Wrong Because I am Always Hurt

The problem, however, is the inevitable situation you find yourself in, as far being being revealed as either a fool or a fiend, given the transcendent nature of truth and the results that can’t be ignored regardless of the distortions and distractions constantly being circulated in the marketplace.

But, by asserting the idea that they are a victim, the Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt. By communicating every talking point from the perspective of someone who is either outraged or wounded, they’re able to distract attention away from the nonsensical aspects of their platform because of the way you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and hateful. As a result, the Modern Day Democrat is accommodated rather than evaluated.

Medical Realities, the Rule of Law, Moral Imperatives, Historical events, Mathematical certainties, Irrefutable evidence, Divine Absolutes…

None of these are acknowledged by the person who’s determined to see themselves as their own bottom line. They are either antiquated traditions or biased attacks that violate a person’s right to be happy.

We Hate America…

Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13): Abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and ‘all deportations are wrong’, including for violent criminals. She has called the U.S. an ‘effing disgrace’, and said in a prior social media post ‘I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.’”

Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul “El-Sayed’s campaign website calls the Supreme Court a ‘major impediment for democracy.’” (Bloomberg Law: Campaigning Democrats Amplify Calls to Overhaul Supreme Court – 7/8/26)

Hasad Piker is an associate of Abdul El Sayed. Piker is on record for having said he hated America.

The DSA has released a new program that, besides contemplating the advent of a classless society, calls for abolishing the US Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sat in the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens on February 20, 2026, during Friday prayers on the first day of Ramadan. The imam led a supplication in Arabic invoking the Mahdi with words translated by MEMRI: “Through your hands comes the relief for the believers and the killing of the infidels by your sword.”

If truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then there is no “correction,” only “oppression.” Their opponents are Nazis, their Republican leaders are tyrants, and their world is oppressive. Anything that has the capacity to reveal the fact that their ideas don’t work and they are the very thing they claim to despise is disputed, not as a valid criticism based on facts and results, but as a personal attack fueled by fear and hate.

You can’t argue with people who think that way because they’re not listening to you. They’re simply waiting for you to stop talking so they can tell you why you should feel sorry for them. Regardless of the facts and the bottom lines you would use to validate your position, it is all dismissed as irrelevant and unreliable propaganda – not because it’s lacking in substance but because it’s a threat to the way in which they have authorized themselves to dictate what’s real according to what they prefer.

This is the dialogue being heard in our society today. It’s not a conversation between two different parties who both want the same thing, only differ in the way it’s obtained. Rather, it’s a contest between two spiritual paradigms summarized as two distinct mottos: “One nation under God,” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Those Aren’t Words, Those Are Masks

The Modern Day Democrat cheers for America’s enemies. 40% of Democrats believe church has a negative effect on society, and several recent Democrat primary winners have made it clear that they don’t like America or its institutions (see sidebar).

Words like “corruption,” “unconstitutional,” and “racism” are not words as much as they are masks when they’re coming from the mouth of a Modern Day Democrat. They’re strategically selected terms designed to trigger an emotional reaction in order to prevent an objective analysis. When you invoke the idea that you’re “hurt,” or that you’re being violated, the first priority is to medicate your wound rather than question your logic. And the more your logic is revealed as nonsensical, the more you have to assault the character and intelligence of those you can’t dispute. The result isn’t a conversation as much as it’s a demonstration. Even when you’re talking to a solitary person, you’re still interacting with the equivalent to a group of people screaming slogans and waving signs.

Real Results and the Right Questions

So, how do you navigate a situation where you’re attempting to reason with someone who’s unreasonable?

Results.

And while you can be accurate by simply stating the facts, if you want to be effective, you want to ask the question that can’t be answered without your opponent having to state those facts themselves.

The current administration is delivering a collection of policies that have resulted in:

And when you look at the military strategy accomplished by securing an agreement with Greenland, the reacquisition of our oil interests in Venezuela3, coupled with the President’s fearless efforts in providing an ever expanding view of the global corruption and the lies masquerading as necessary measures and credible headlines4  – it’s a great day!

But in order to get to that “great day” idea, you first have to ask those questions that compel an answer that reveals both the truth and the nonsensical efforts to suppress it.

  • Do you prefer a higher poverty level?
  • Would you rather have more murders in this country?
  • If you support open borders, then I’m assuming you leave all your doors unlocked, correct?
  • Which option translates to a stronger economy: More jobs or less?
  • Which gas station would you buy your fuel from: The one that charges a dollar more per gallon, or the one that charges a dollar less?5
  • Would you be comfortable if someone you knew you couldn’t trust was pointing a gun at you just because somebody else said it wasn’t loaded?

Conclusion

The “third party audience” debate technique is an approach that you take where the person you’re arguing with isn’t necessarily your real target. The real target is the undecided or persuadable person watching the exchange. You want to keep that technique in mind when you’re feeling like withdrawing from the conversation, be it on social media or in person, believing you’re just wasting your time or, perhaps making a bad situation worse.

There are impressionable people listening to your voice and, provided you’re telling the truth, they need to hear what you have to say, even if your opponent refuses to listen.

At the end of the day, this is more than Politics. You’ll hear people sometimes saying that our country is engaged in an existential crisis.

We are.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos.

Our currency says “In God We Trust.” That is the foundation upon which our founding fathers built the Declaration of Independence. It’s because there’s a God in Heaven and there are Absolutes that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels that they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint.

You take God out of the equation and you no longer have rights, you have demands – demands that can only be met by surrounding yourself with like minded people and silencing those who think otherwise. But even then, you are subscribing to an approach that is a philosophical dead end because of the way you’ve declared yourself to be “right,” despite the fact that you want to simultaneously say that there is no definitive right or wrong.

The candidates we endorse do not have to be pastors, they only need to be able to lead in a way that lines up with what’s true. 3+2=5 regardless of how the number 5 makes you feel. Lead and live in a way that acknowledges the reality of standards and not just situations. Stop trying to reinvent the human experience by thinking you can speak into existence something that is fundamentally flawed and then defend that position by saying “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Truth isn’t created with a conviction. For a conviction to be valid, it has to be true and no amount of passion or persecution will ever change that.

Two mottos.

Which one is yours?

 

1. “The Singju Post”, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs: Katherine Maher (Transcript)” https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balancing-truth-and-beliefs-katherine-maher-transcript/, accessed September 9, 2026

2. The JCPOA was an agreement put in place by the Obama Administration in 2015 that lifted certain sanctions in exchange for Iran’s commitment to restrict its nuclear program. The problem with that agreement is that it was based on inspections that proved less than credible.

If Iran’s leadership has demonstrated that it cannot simply be trusted to disclose its nuclear activities, and if international inspectors cannot obtain sufficiently comprehensive access to independently establish that Iran has disclosed all relevant nuclear activity, then no agreement can establish with certainty that Iran has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The agreement may constrain Iran’s known capabilities, but the underlying threat remains wherever undeclared activity cannot be ruled out.

3. In 2007, Chavez ordered that all foreign oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil be transformed into joint ventures and Venezuela would own 60% of the new organization. Both Companies refused, but were nevertheless forced to comply. This has also been the situation in Venezuela under Maduro who had a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by President Biden. President Trump’s actions in seizing Maduro were justified on several levels, given the evidence against Mr. Maduro that’s been collected over several years by investigators in Miami, New York, Houston, and Washington who have brought drug trafficking, foreign bribery, and money-laundering charges against several senior Venezuelan officials, members of the military and government-connected businessmen. Maduro’s removal also restores to the American companies that were ousted by Chavez the opportunity to resume operations.

4. There are several instances of fraud and corruption that President Trump has shined a light on that were operating in the shadows. One example is how the financial network that funds Iran’s terrorist operations are based in London. Billions of dollars of wasted and fraud was revealed by DOGE. President Trump introduced a new economic paradigm that put a halt to unfair trade agreements that hurt American manufacturing and positions the overall wellbeing of America as a priority.

5. There are several dynamics to consider when it comes to lowering fuel prices. #1) Destroy an international sponsor of terror’s ability to control the global energy market. This is being done most directly by preventing Iran from controlling the Strait of Hormuz. While the US doesn’t have complete control as of yet, the US Navy is now the agency that enforces maritime safety and control and not the Iranian government. In addition, by virtue of the US control of the Strait, Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely damaged. And that’s just part of a much broader strategy to cripple the current militant regime that governs Iran and create an environment that allows the Iranian people to institute a more democratic government. By destroying the militants that were in power and deploying Operation Economic Outcast, an economic campaign designed to cut off every income stream that is used to subsidize the IRGC, President Trump gives to the Iranians an opportunity to take control over their own country.

For more reading…

I Can’t, You Can, Thank You Very Much…!

/in , , /by

I can’t…

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (Jn 15:5)

Even when I see myself as “capable,” I’m still utterly dependent on God and He’s the One that’s working in and through me, even when I’m completely oblivious to His Presence and Activity (Phil 2:13).

You can…

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matt 19:26)

You are limited to the resources you have at your disposal, God is not. God can do anything (see also Eph 3:20-21).

Than You Very Much…

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. (Phil 4:6)

Some want to argue, “What’s the point? God’s going to do whatever He wills…”

Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails. (Prov 16:9; 19:21 [see also Num 23:19; Ps 33:11])

And yet, God gives us both the opportunity to ask, seek, and knock (Matt 7:7)…

11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. (Ex 32:11-14)

It isn’t so much that God is willing to “bargain,” as much as He’s wanting us to depend on Him and to trust His Purpose.

 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 
(Jn 9:3 [see also 2 Cor 1:8-9])

Oswald Chambers said this about prayer:

To say that “prayer changes things” is not as close to the truth as saying, “Prayer changes me and then I change things.” God has established things so that prayer, on the basis of redemption, changes the way a person looks at things. Prayer is not a matter of changing things externally, but one of working miracles in a person’s inner nature. (My Utmost for His Highest)

We’re going to run into trouble (Jn 16:33) and at that point, we can look at our situation exclusively from a human perspective or choose to see it as an opportunity for God to move.

He may not “move” the way you want Him to. It’s easy to wonder why Paul had to terrorize Christians before he became one (Acts 9:1-2). Why did so many boys have to die in order to satisfy Herod’s fear that his rule was getting ready to be overthrown (Matt 2:16-18)?

David asked a similar question in Psalm 73:3. But the bottom line is that there’s a plan…

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. (Is 55:8)

…and it’s because there’s a plan and not just a “problem,” that we can confidently keep our hand in His and say…

I can’t.

You can.

Thank You very much!

The Shroud of Turin

/in , , , /by

It’s Not Just the Image of His Face

The Shroud of Turin is often pictured in a way that suggests it’s no more than a piece of cloth that covered a man’s face that looks suspiciously like the way Jesus is often portrayed in paintings etc.

But it’s actually 14 feet 3 inches long and 3 feet 7 inches wide. It’s not just the image of a man’s face. It’s a cloth that has imprinted on it the image of man who was buried after having been crucified and beaten in a way that matches the wounds inflicted upon Christ.

It was first documented in 1349 in Lirey, France, it was presented by French knight Geoffrey de Charny. Yet, many believe its journey began much earlier: possibly passing through Jerusalem, Edessa (modern-day Şanlıurfa in Turkey), and Constantinople before arriving in Western Europe.1

From a distance, it looks interesting, but not necessarily compelling. It’s difficult to imagine that this was one of the actual “cloths” referred to in John 20:3-4:

At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. (Jn 20:3-4)

Nothing Short of Amazing

But there have been a number of studies done on the Shroud and there are several aspects of this artifact that are nothing short of amazing. Take a look:

  • The pioneering work of forensic botanist Max Frei-Sulzer revealed that the Shroud contains pollen from least fifty-eight species, many of which are unique to Jerusalem and bloom during the Spring when Christ was crucified.
  • Mineral analysis of limestone dust from the feet region matches samples from ancient tombs in Jerusalem.
  • Dust from the feet area of the Shroud contained a specific calcium carbonate from travertine aragonite limestone, similar to dust taken from a tomb in Jerusalem.
  • If you look closely at the image, you’ll see a patch of hair missing from the chin, which matches the way in which Isaiah 50:6 references how a person’s beard would be plucked out as a sign of disrespect – possibly part of the way the Pharisees mocked Christ at His trial (Lk 22:63-65).
  • The fabric of the Shroud is a quality textile that aligns with descriptions of fine burial cloths in the Gospels. Notably, the cloth is pure linen – unmixed with wool or cotton as prescribed by Jewish purity laws (Leve 19:19) and referenced in Matthew 27:59.
  • The image on the Shroud isn’t painted, stained, or imprinted by any known artistic technique. Microscopic analysis shows that the image rests only on the outermost fibers of the linen threads – less than one micron deep. No pigment, binder, directionality consistent with brush strokes has been found.
  • Scientific consensus has proven the image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test of serum albumin. The hemoglobin confirms that it’s actual blood and not paint. Scientists using ultraviolet light and chemical tests can find faint “halos” of serum albumin surrounding the darker red hemoglobin stains. This pattern only happens when liquid blood from an open wound physically soaks into the threads.
  • Further studies revealed high bilirubin levels – a yellow a yellow waste product created when red blood cells break down, typical with severe trauma prior to death. This would’ve been nearly impossible to fabricate from an artist’s perspective.
  • 372 visible scourge marks are visible, although total lacerations are estimated at 700.
  • Head wounds consistent with a crown of thorns.
  • Nail wounds through the wrists and not through the soft tissue of the hands.
  • Nail wounds in the feet through the calcaneus (kal·KAY·nee·uhs [see image to the right])
  • A side wound with blood and clear fluid later found to have flowed posmortem
  • Two prominent shoulder abrasions that correspond to the carrying of the cross
  • No evidence of broken bones

A VP-8 Image Analyzer measures the gradients embedded in a 2 dimensional image. A painting can mimic depth and distance by incorporating shadows, but a photograph is different because of the way it naturally captures the differences in the way an object reflects the light. When the VP-8 Image Analyzer was used on the Shroud, it revealed a perfectly symmetrical image of a man.

Paolo Di Lazzaro and his team at ENEA Labs in Rome spent five years tyring to answer what formed the image on the Shroud…He is a physicist of the first order. His life’s work has focused on laser, power, and energy, and his lab worked with flax grown from first-century seed stock. After hundreds of failed attempts, they concluded it would take a burst of 34,000 watts of radiant engery delivered in one 40-billionth of a second to create the image – and that’s only to match the superficial coloration of the outermost linen fibers. No one has that technology. No one.2

When you consider the odds that one man could be crucified and exhibit every major characteristic of Christ’s crucifixion, the result is 1 in 200 billion.3

Faith is the Assurance of Things…

We do not have access to recorded interviews or footage of the Resurrection, let alone the actual Person of Christ. Still, we have an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to validate the Reality of the empty tomb, not to mention the testimony of creation (Rom 1:20).

But while that is compelling, we still have to exercise faith (Rom 10:17; Heb 11:1)…

1) What does the possibility of you being able to look at the actual burial cloth of Christ do to your everyday perspective on yourself and the world around you?

2) If you were to have lived back then, would you have believed? Would you have been willing to die for your belief?

3) If Christ would show up at your front door, would you be surprised that He was, in fact, real?

4) Does “proof” make faith easier, or do the implications resonate as unsettling?

Conclusion

The Shroud of Turin, for some, is a gamechanger. Faith becomes almost mandatory, given the substance of all the Shroud represents. But, at the same time, there are authorities who insist it’s a medieval forgery.

There’s scene from the move “Ben Hur” where the lead character played by Charlton Heston locks eyes with Jesus and recognizes Him as Someone who, not only helped him in a desperate moment of need, but also as Someone greater than a mere human being.

It’s a reaction that seems understandable given the way a relationship with Christ can sometimes become either too familiar or something that’s maintained at a distance.

Regardless of whether or not the Shroud actually covered the corpse of Christ, we want to always remember we serve a Real God that you could’ve listened to in real time, and the miracles He performed benefited people you could’ve talked to in person.

Let’s never fail to be in awe of Who we worship and never lose the complete confidence that when we trust and obey, we follow and honor a real Savior.

1. “Magis Center”, “Scientific Insights into the Shroud of Turin”, https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/science-and-the-shroud-of-turin, accessed September 10, 2026
2. “The Jesus Discoveries”, Jeremiah J. Johnson, Bethany House, Minneapolis, MN 2026, p26
3. Ibid, p26

The Shroud of Turin is Real?

Three Things Every American Should Know | Part One: There is a God and You’re Not Him

/in , , /by

As we’re coming into the Midterm elections and seeing a number of Muslims winning Democrat primaries, there’s a need to clarify three things that every American should know before they cast their ballot.

#1) There is a God and you’re not Him.

You want to think that because you have the right to be happy, you can make up your own rules.

No.

It’s because God makes the rules, that you the right to be happy.

You take God out of the picture, and you don’t have rights, you have demands. That’s why the Declaration of Independence resonated resonated the way that it did. By stating that our rights are guaranteed by God and not dispensed as a king, we were validated as patriots with a cause. Otherwise, we were traitors with a complaint.

There is a God and you’re not Him.

The Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George, the king of England as well as the head of the Church of England. Every reference to a Creator, the Supreme Judge of the Universe, or Providence was processed as a reference to the God of the Bible and not a generic deity. However you want to try and dismiss the Second Continental Congress as a group of secular politicians with no real regard for religion, let alone the empty tomb, you have to ignore…

  • The sixteen times they called for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting during the Revolutionary War and the verbiage of those proclamations.
  • The opening lines of the Treaty of Versailles
  • The inscription on the Liberty Bell
  • General Washington’s General Orders
  • The testimony of John Adams
  • The impact of the Great Awakening
  • The reaction of the House of Burgesses to the Boston Tea Party
  • The Black Robe Regiment
  • Holland’s observation of the Continental Army
  • Washington’s Farewell Address
  • Letter read to Parliament by Sir Richard Sutton
  • The words of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and James Madison
  • …and so much more!

Two professors, Donald S. Lultz and Charles S. Hynemman, reviewed an estimated 15,000 items, and closely read 2,200 books, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805. They reduced this to 916 items, about one-third of all political writings longer than 2,000 words.

From these items, Lutz and Hynemann identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source most cited by the founding fathers was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations.1

There is a God, and you’re not Him!

1.”Christianity and the Constitution”, John Eidsmore, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987, p51

Imaginary Sermon

/in , , , , /by

Brothers and sisters in Christ, greetings!

I come before you today in the Name of Christ Who, with His death and Resurrection, destroyed every social construct that would otherwise be used by sinful men to restrict the rights and opportunities that God gives to every man ❶.

We are here today to consider the tragic death of George Floyd and to determine if his death is the result of a wicked mindset manifested in the actions of ones entrusted with the role of keeping the peace. ❷

We, as a culture, have been conditioned to project any one of a number of assumptions on to scenarios such as these and believe that it is all part of the insidious sin of Racism our ancestors had to endure for centuries. But I come to you in the Name of Christ today to remind you that we become the very thing we claim to despise if we first do not mediate on the Truth of Scripture which is what gives Divine Credence to our cause. ❸

Here me.

You Who Pass Judgment Do the Same Things

If we do not call out these officers by name and instead condemn the entire law enforcement community –   if we do not address those individuals within the system who are corrupt and instead  indict the entire system… Are we not doing the very thing that we accuse others of doing to us? ❹

Set Them an Example

Moreover, when we take the stand in the court of public opinion, how does our testimony resonate in the minds of the jury? It says in Proverbs 3:1-4:

My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, 2 for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity 3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man. (Prov 3:1-4)

Later in chapter 22, it says;

A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold. (Prov 22:1)

As believers, you bear the Name of Christ. As a son and as a daughter you bear the name of your forefathers and of your immediate family. It is because of this Truth, that your reputation is so important because your actions reflect, not only on yourself, but also on those whose name you bear. ❺

What is our reputation?

  • 41% of our young people drop out of High School
  • 70% of our infants are born out of wedlock.
  • Combine that with the fact that while we account for only 13% of our nation’s total citizenry,  the population of our country’s prisons are 34% African American.

When a police officer kisses his wife good bye in the morning, there is an unspoken reality that he is seeing his bride for the last time given the risks he takes to serve and protect. Does our reputation put him at ease or does it put him on his guard? Is our reputation such where the words we speak are immediately embraced as the legitimate concerns that they are or does our notoriety drown out the voice of our hurting and the sound of our appeal? ❻

Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit. What sort of produce do our collective vineyards yield? Is it characterized by law abiding citizens or arrest records?  Do we have more abortion clinics than nurseries? Does it boast a rich collection of graduates or a large number of empty classrooms? Are we collectively setting an example that compliments our cause or does it distract from it?

We Each Are Responsible

We accuse our own within the law enforcement community of being corrupt, we assault the character of anyone who dares to suggest that our bad reputation is deserved, we complain that the system is rigged, that our image is distorted and even now, we prepare to protest the newest appearance of Police Brutality because we believe that it was not only Racism that caused the death of George Floydm but it’s Racism that’s to blame for all the adversity we contend with. ❼

But to what extent do our collective actions place us in the position we’re in? Are we victims of a biased infrastructure or are we merely victims of our own immoral decision making? ❽ We complain that the police project on to every one of us the trouble and the harm they have suffered at the hands of our brethren. But should not a portion of our indignation be directed to those of us who are lawless instead of hating the one who enforces the law? ❾

We burn the flag that elects a black man as president, we spurn the anthem that destroyed slavery, we denounce the system that gives us free education and all the while it is our fathers who are leaving, it is our grades that are lacking and it is our own that we are killing.

If our platform is to have any credibility –  if our indignation is to resonate as righteous –  than we cannot be hypocritical in our accusations, we must set an example in our conduct and we must take responsibility for our actions.

Regardless of Race

And it is here where I would pause and remind you that at this point I do not speak only to those who are gathered in this sanctuary, but to all men regardless of race. We stifle the resolution we seek by referring to men as either black or white. And ladies, I beseech you to hear me include you when I say, “men” in that I’m referring to all humanity.

We are not “white,” we are not “black” we are all God’s offspring ❿  and we are all therefore obligated to not only hold the Bible we own with our hands, but to obey the God it proclaims with our whole heart. ➀

More Than An Authority

As an officer of the law, you are tasked with keeping the peace and assuming all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Even those whose records are tarnished with past mistakes, the Bible rebukes those who make false assumptions. ➁

Your badge must be more than an authority, it must also be an example. And however you are maligned and even threatened, your response must go beyond being merely “smart,” you have to be “wise.” ➂

And I am not suggesting that by being “wise,” you are therefore restricted from using deadly force. It’s not that you are restricted as much as you are resolved to kill only when it’s appropriate to do so. And yes, there are times when it’s appropriate to kill. ➃ But there is also a time to heal and you must be able to make that distinction.

Should it be determined that you are using your position to lord it over those who are obligated to obey, you are identified in Scripture as a wicked oppressor and a false teacher and there is a special kind of destruction awaiting you on Judgement Day. ➄

To those who are breaking the law, in whatever capacity, know this: You are not just violating a human regulation, you are breaking a Divine Directive. If you commit murder, if you steal, you not only incur the righteous wrath of of the law, you also sin against God.➅

Just like the Police Officer who has to answer to a Higher Standard than his immediate supervisor, you also have to answer to a Higher Law. And should your behavior be revealed as violent and disrespectful when you are apprehended, you do nothing but add to your guilt both in the sight of your jurors as well as in the sight of your King. ❾

It’s Not Only the Law That You Are Breaking

And to those who murder, steal and destroy and excuse it as a reasonable reaction to “not being heard” or a “miscarriage of justice,” let me remind you that the moment you break the law, you are no longer a protester or an activist, you are a criminal and, again,  it is not only the law that you are breaking, it is your God that you are offending – especially if you do your wanton acts insisting that you represent a godly disposition ➆.

What Are We Doing?

In the sixties, a number of extraordinary people emerged who had labored beneath the weight of racial prejudice and went on to accomplish some amazing things:

  • Rosa Parks was a soft spoken black woman whose refusal to surrender her seat because of her race would inspire the Montgomery Bus Boycott and lead to her being honored with the Medal of Freedom in 1996.
  • James Meredith was a nine year veteran of the United States Air Force who would go on to become the first black American to attend the University of Mississippi despite the riots his enrollment inspired which would be dispersed only with the intervention of Federal Troops.
  • Percy Julian is one of the most influential chemists in American history despite his not being able to attend High School and had to study abroad in order to secure his doctorate because of his color.
  • Barbara Jordan grew up in a poor, black neighborhood in Houston, Texas and, despite the challenges of being an African American in an area where Jim Crow laws was common, she was nevertheless able to make history by being the first black female in congress to come from the deep south.

These are among the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. They inspired change, in part, by presenting an argument that reeked of moral and professional excellence. By living and performing in a manner that was beyond reproach, they were able to silence the criticisms that would’ve otherwise distracted from the injustices they sought to resolve and the result was dramatic ➇.

Today, we are instructed to embrace an entirely different kind of individual and and honor them in the same way we do the noble persons who carried the baton of the Civil Rights issue decades ago.

  • George Floyd had a criminal record that included five arrests and five years spent in prison for aggravated robbery.
  • Rodney King, at the time of his arrest in 1991, had been sentenced to two years in prison for robbing a convenience store armed with a tire iron.
  • Freddie Gray had been arrested on multiple occasions for drug related crimes.

In each case, you have a person that had a criminal record and was resisting arrest when they were initially apprehended. Now, rather than being able to prosecute our cause in the context of moral courage and professional excellence, we are seen as accusing others of being unprincipled when our champions seemingly have no principles ourselves. ⑨

What are we doing?

If we would answer that question with a response that included successful appeals for justice and productive conversations that yielded positive results, we need to cease all attempts to qualify an event by asking whether or not it involved a black man or a white man and instead ask whether or not it involved a good man – be they the one being arrested or the one that is making the arrest. And if Christ really did die and come back to life, than the definition of a good man is a godly man, can I get an “Amen?”

Let Us Move Forward

Let us move forward, then, by refusing to express our concerns in the context of labels, mobs and crowds. Let us avoid becoming the very thing we claim to despise by  by directing our questions to the individuals involved and not the institutions they represent. Let us labor to be living manifestations of the moral excellence we would demand in others. Let us move beyond race and instead look at one another as fellow soldiers battling our eternal enemy as a unified force, sanctified by the blood of Christ and empowered by His Holy Spirit. And let our cause be a racially diverse venture that battles true bigotry by holding up specific instances of moral excellence responded to with an undeniably sinful bias- and not the flawed campaigns triggered by legitimate arrests and prosecuted with even more criminal activity.

That is how you effectively assert the Truth of your God, that is how you lead by example and that is how you effect true and enduring change. Let us move forward and let us pray now for both the Strength and the Wisdom to do just that.

Lets’ pray…

❶ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)

❷ When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. (Prov 29:2)

❸ Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. (Prov 16:32)

❹ You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Rom 2:1)

❺ I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth— everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. (Is 43:6-7 [emphasis added]) On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (Jn 14:20)

❻ In the same way, let your light shine before men so that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matt 5:16) In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:7-8)

❼ He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. (Job 34:11) When a man’s folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the Lord. (Prov 19:3) Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5 For we are each responsible for our own conduct. (Gal 6:4-5 [NLT])

❽ Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? (Prov 6:27-28)

❾ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:4) Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

❿ For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (col 1:16)

➀ Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. (Jas 1:22)

➁ Do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame? (Prov 25:8) Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few. (Ecc 5:2)

➂ “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor 2:16) My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, (Jas 1:19)

➃ a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, (Ecc 3:3)

➄ Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a helpless people. (Prov 28:15) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Pet 2:1-3)

➅ For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge. (Ps 51:3-4)

➆ You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Ex 20:7)

➇ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. (1 pet 2:15)

⑨ “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Matt 7:1-2)

Hodge Twins

Copy / Paste

/in , , , /by

You always want to be explain what you believe and why (1 Pet 3:15). You never want to be guilty of simply “copying and pasting” what someone else said and use that as the basis for your convictions.

There’s a lot of that going on today. You’ll hear people rant about policies and personalities, yet when you look at what they use to justify their indignation, you’re met with what sounds like a script that they’ve just copied and pasted from their favorite news outlet.

There’s nothing wrong with citing a credible resource, but you want to make sure that it’s credible before you refer to it as conclusive.

Fact is, it’s possible to be honest without telling the whole truth.

  • Some will pose as outraged by a particular behavior, yet are suspiciously silent when that same behavior is exhibited in those they support.
  • Others are critical of the accomplishments of those they disagree with, yet applaud those same accomplishments when done by those they admire.

It’s more than a double standard, because you have to have a standard to begin with in order for it to be duplicated.

If you’re among those that define an “open mind” as someone who will say things like, “What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me,” you’ve declared yourself to be utterly meaningless, because, according to your own logic, a person can accuse you of being a liar and not be wrong.

You want to “evaluate” all of the relevant facts based on their substance and relevance to the issue being discussed. You don’t want to simply “eliminate” those facts that are credible, yet contradict the conclusion that aligns with what you want to hear. However compelling an appeal for pity may sound, it’s revealed as a fool’s paradise when it’s determined that the pain they’re feeling is a result of them having shot themselves in the foot.

If you want to be taken seriously, you want to be able to demonstrate the fact that you have evaluated the facts and not just eliminated the facts you don’t want to consider. You do that by being able to explain what you believe and why you believe it, and that’s not accomplished by simply “copying and pasting” from your preferred collection of resources.

The Elimination of Tension

/in , , , /by

Some in our society today want to define “love” as being the elimination of tension.

There’s no confrontation, no correction…

…just affirmation.

When you trace that line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, you have a situation where

  • Law Enforcement (Rom 13:4-5)
  • Discipline (Prov 15:10; Prov 25:28)
  • Education (Prov 4:13; 18:15)
  • Personal Responsibility (Rom 14:12; Gal 6:5)
  • Moral Courage (Josh 1:9; Prov 28:1; 1 Cor 16:13)
  • and a healthy Work Ethic (Prov 6:6; Matt 25:14-30)…

…are all regarded as detrimental.

Even the concept of God’s Grace becomes toxic because of the way it implies that a person needs to be forgiven (Prov 14:9; 28:26; 30:12; Lk 18:11-12; 1 Jn 1:8).

Love is often manifested as a person’s willingness to endure the tension that occurs when a commitment to another’s welfare is perceived as an assault on their happiness (Prov 27:6; Heb 12:2).

That kind of love is rare, but it’s the only kind that is real (Prov 27:5).

Everything else is a cowardly imitation posing as compassion (Prov 27:6; 29:5; Lk 22:47-48).

What Does it Mean to Love Your Enemy? | Part II

/in , , , /by

Neither Biblical nor Noble

This is Part 2 of a 3 part series where we’re looking at how you are to love your enemy.

When you remain silent in the face of evil, you’re able to effectively insulate yourself from the attacks that come from those who want to silence anyone who would dare to point out their sinister actions and intent.

However sinful it may be (Gal 2:11-21; Jas 4:17), it’s an alluring way to remain on the sidelines so as to avoid the real conflict that’s happening on the field and the opposition you would otherwise have to contend with.

But when you look at Scripture as a whole, you are compelled to concede that remaining either silent or accommodating is neither biblical let alone noble.

These days, Politics and Current Events tend to be processed according to two very different worldviews.

One sees evil as something to be accommodated, the other sees it as something to be resisted.

Those who see evil as something that needs to be accommodated need to position it as something to pity. You don’t have to get someone to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you.

You see that often in the Bible beginning in Genesis 3 when the serpent suggests to Eve that God is both afraid and resentful:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:1-5)

Satan begins by suggesting that God had denied Adam and Even the ability to eat from any tree, He asserts the idea that God is unnecessarily harsh, which, by default, makes Adam and Eve victims of an overbearing administration. Then in verse 5 he suggests that God is secretly intimidated at the thought of Adam and Eve becoming more than what they are right now.

What was a generous provision is now seen as an unnecessary restriction imposed by a mindset characterized by fear and hate.

Poison Disguised as a Courtesy

However obvious it may be from a distance, it can be difficult to see up close because of the way compliance with an evil premise is often justified as an act of compassion.

  • Aaron’s part in building the golden calf (Ex 32:22-23)
  • Israel’s demand for a king (1 Sam 8:6-9)
  • Saul disobeys God by sparing King Agag and the best of the livestock (1 Sam 15:7-10)
  • King Herod’s request to the Magi to tell him where Jesus was born (Matt 2:7-8, 13)
  • Judas complaining about the perfume used to anoint Christ, saying that it should’ve been sold and the money given to the poor (Jn 12:1-8)

In each of the above scenarios, you have a situation where sin was concealed as a healthy and logical compromise. But what appeared to be rational and even noble, was a poison disguised as a courtesy.

The Right Questions

While discerning the difference between a legitimate request for mercy and a selfish demand for immunity is not always easy, you can gain some visibility into what’s actually the case by asking the right questions.

Accusations can be denied, and facts can be disputed. But a simple question left insufficiently answered cannot be ignored. With the right question, you’re able to proceed directly to that place where there’s either an answer or an excuse, and that’s an important dynamic to have in place in order to prevent a lie from being embraced as the truth.

Today’s political climate is frequently punctuated with soundbytes and snapshots that are presented as holistic perspectives on a particular issue. The result is a toxic environment where falsehoods are concealed behind cries for compassion and anything that has the capacity to reveal the truth is demonized as ignorant and tyrannical.

For example, the following was circulated on Social Media as an attempt to accuse anyone who supports the current administration as being less than Christlike. However compelling it may appear to be on the surface, its flaws from both a biblical and logical perspective are revealed simply by asking the right questions.

You’ll see the original post on the left with the “right questions” listed on the right.

post the right questions

Through the White House Office of Faith, the Trump administration has racked up several significant accomplishments on behalf of America’s faith based community which include:

Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias – In 2023, the Biden Administration labeled people of faith as domestic terror threats for opposing abortion and transgender ideologies. Paulette Harlow, a 75 year old grandmother confined to a wheel chair was arrested for “obstructing” an Abortion Clinic and sentenced to 2 years in prison. This was typical of the Biden DOJ. The Trump Administration, through the “White House Office of Faith” pardoned Harlow as well as several others who were imprisoned for their “terrorist” activities.

The Department of Veterans Affairs rescinded a Biden-era speech code that censored the sermons of military chaplains – Russell Trubey was a chaplain in a Pennsylvania VA medical center for 10 years. After delivering a sermon at the center’s chapel on Romans 1, police approached him alleging complaints were reported about the content of his message. He was removed from his duties and reassigned to stock shelves in the hospital. The Trump Administration rescinded that action and reinforced the fact that chaplains can preach in accordance with their faith without fear of persecution.

Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission – Compelling statistics reveal a disproportionate bias against Christian universities during the Biden era. Outrageous fines that were, in some instances, the largest dollar amounts in history, were levied against faith based colleges for identical infractions committed by secular institutions that were not punished to the same extent. This anomaly was seen, not just in academia, but in a number of instances pertaining to funding and tax exempt status.

For a complete listing of the Trump Administration’s accomplishments in the context of faith based initiatives, click here.
You can’t spend Sunday morning in church praising Jesus, talking about love, compassion, mercy, humility, honesty, and caring for the vulnerable, then spend Sunday afternoon defending an administration that does the exact opposite. Are you being being like Christ by insisting that everyone who is breaking into your neighbor’s house is only doing so because they’re hungry? And how are you not being hypocritical if you’re telling your nethat they should leave its doors open when yours are locked and you’ve got a security system in place?
And before someone says, “But I’m a Republican,” let me remind you of something: God doesn’t serve political parties. Jesus didn’t die for Democrats. Jesus didn’t die for Republicans. He didn’t wear a red hat or a blue one. He didn’t tell people to pick a team and hate the other side. He called people to love their neighbor, care for the poor, welcome the stranger, seek truth, show mercy, and hold the powerful accountable. You can’t praise the Good Samaritan while cheering policies that target immigrants and asylum seekers. Is it against the law to enter this country illegally?

How were the “foreigners” and “strangers” in Scripture treated when they broke the law? (Lev 24:17-22)

Loving your enemy, at the very least, means that you are working to promote their welfare. How are you doing that by enabling their illegal behavior?
You can’t celebrate “love thy neighbor” while mocking the poor, cutting assistance for struggling families, and treating human suffering like a political talking point. You can’t talk about protecting children while separating families, demonizing entire communities, and creating fear as a governing strategy. How am I “loving my neighbor” by ignoring fraud?

Why are you blaming law enforcement for separating families when it was the parents who put their families in that position to begin with?

Is it not common for guilty people to be afraid of being caught (Rom 13:3-4)?
Jesus fed the hungry. He didn’t ask for their paperwork first. Jesus healed the sick. He didn’t check their political party. Jesus stood with the marginalized. He didn’t use them as campaign props. Jesus challenged the powerful. He didn’t worship them. This administration has normalized cruelty, retaliation, greed, vengeance, dishonesty, scapegoating, and the constant division of Americans against one another. It attacks journalists, demonizes opponents, mocks compassion as weakness, treats empathy as a flaw, and encourages people to view fellow Americans as enemies rather than neighbors. How would you expect someone who’s guilty of fraud and deceit to react when they’re revealed for who and what they are?

What’s the purpose of division according to 1 Corinthians 11:19?

Which party is it that refers to its opponents as Nazis?
The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Ask yourself honestly: are those the values being demonstrated? Or are we seeing anger, fear, revenge, hostility, insults, loyalty tests, culture wars, and endless outrage? You don’t have to be a Democrat to see it. You don’t have to be liberal to see it. You just have to compare what Jesus taught with what this administration celebrates. Does love delight in evil? And is it not evil to ignore the rule of law (Rom 13:4)?
If your politics require you to ignore cruelty, excuse corruption, justify lies, or abandon compassion, then politics has become your religion and your politician has become your idol. God doesn’t have a political team. Jesus doesn’t wear a campaign hat. What does the Bible say about a fool’s reaction to discipline (Prov 15:7, 10)?

If truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then how else would they react to correction if not by labeling it as cruel, corrupt, and lacking in compassion?
And no politician is important enough to place above the values you claim to believe in every Sunday morning. Why would I not support a politician who enforces the rule of law, deploys a foreign policy that’s characterized by actions and not just words, and calls out falsehoods when he sees them?