COEXIST

COEXIST. It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions. As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world. That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical.

Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST

The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity.

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably. Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam    

 A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4).

It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him. This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3).

Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence?

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

…and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

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)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

Jihad Against Jews and Crusader
World Islamic Front Statement
February 28, 1998
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)v

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3

This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

The Babylonian Talmud

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestations of His Justice.          

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most significant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction. David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6).

2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God. That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be categorized as holy let alone right.

And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda. So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Islamic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone diluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com

Because of the Constitution, Not in Spite of It

Ain’t it amazing when you hear people talk about the US as those who have something real to compare it to? Whether by default or design, they are embracing all the freedoms that go along with our spiritual / moral heritage. This is the very thing that the Left wants to retool, believing it to be antiquated and even sinister.

There are some who believe the Constitution to be toxic in that it was written and ratified by a group of men, many of whom were slave owners. What’s ironic about their perspective is that they’re demonizing the very paradigm that gives them the right to be critical.

The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. On June 8, 1789, he addressed the Congress and insisted that the Constitution would not be complete unless amendments were added that explicitly protected individual rights. These would be the first ten amendments made to the Constitution and among them were the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

James Madison was a slave owner. Granted, the irony is obvious. How can a man who views an entire race of human beings as nothing more than pieces of property to be bought and sold not recognize how that view compromises the declared scope of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence? But in the end, the quality and durability of the Constitution is not measure by the moral flaws of the men that wrote it. Rather, it’s gauged according to the substance of the document itself.

For those who want to dismiss the Constitution as racist, it’s not just the Bill of Rights they should be considering. It’s also the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that were made by the Republican party1 in the aftermath of the Civil War – the only war that was fought in the history of our planet that was waged for the sake of eliminating the sin of slavery.

The 13th amendment banned slavery, the 14th amendment defined a citizen as anyone born in the US which overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited Black people from voting, and the 15th amendment was an expansion of the 14th amendment. It prohibited governments from denying US citizens the right to vote based on race, color or past servitude. Like so many on the Left who labor to promote convictions based on a very judiciously selected collection of facts in a way to muffle the truth, is not only flawed, it’s downright belligerent. 360,000 Caucasians died to ensure the end of slavery as well as create the political environment that would allow for the aforementioned amendments.

By condemning the Constitution, they sneer at the very laws that give them the right to mock their government without fear of punishment. It’s this same legal foundation that provides all of us the opportunity to succeed and grow. And none of this came about without the blood and sacrifice of millions of people in the context of wars that were fought to protect those freedoms.

In short, the Oath of Allegiance that an immigrant has to state in order to become a citizen is something they embrace as a privilege. It includes supporting and defending the Constitution. They joyfully swear their allegiance to our country and its laws because they appreciate the profound rights guaranteed by the philosophical and legislative foundation crafted by flawed men, no doubt, but based on Divine Absolutes that prevent the corruption of power from restricting an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The video clip featured on the right is more than just an inspiring scene of individuals realizing their dream of citizenship in the US. It’s a reminder that we are still a beacon of hope and opportunity for much of the civilized world. And we are that because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

1. 13th Amendment – James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio (Republican)14th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican)15th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican)

Nazi’s

The question being asked was, “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party?

The responses were typical of the way some want to demonize those can’t dispute without sounding selfish and foolish. They approach the world with a strategy that says if I can’t get you to agree with me, I’ll get you to feel sorry for me.

On the surface, it’s frustrating because of the way the obvious truth is ignored in favor of catering to those who insist that because they’re uncomfortable they automatically qualify as a priority. They’re a casual spectator looking for a quick and easy way to be perceived as sophisticated and compassionate.

But there are others who are genuinely toxic. They embrace the idea that however flawed their rationale may be, if they can reduce those who they disagree with to the status of a villain, they are now no longer obligated to explain why their ideas don’t work, they can now simply “resist” those who oppose them.

Left Wing Violence

Even honest liberals have had to admit in recent weeks that left-wing terrorism exceeds rightwing terrorism. On September 23, no less an emblem of American liberalism than The Atlantic magazine admitted that fact in an article, based on a recent study, under the headline, “Left-Wing Terrorism Is On The Rise.”Less honest liberals, including members of Congress, have nevertheless persisted in denying this fact. Democrat congressman Seth Moulton reacted to a leftist’s assassination of the most prominent proponent of civil debate on the American Right by blaming the Right. He claimed that three-quarters of political violence in the United States comes from the Right, while only four percent is committed by the Left. That claim struck me as suspect, so I looked into just a few examples of left-to-right political violence. Consider the Covenant School massacre in Nashville, for instance, in which a transidentifying shooter murdered Christian children at school after leaving a manifesto outlining ideological motivations, such as gender ideology. That incident, according to authorities, lacked an ideological motive. The Black Lives Matter riots—overtly leftist demonstrations that left dozens of people dead and over a billion dollars’ worth of property damage—likewise fail to show up on registers of left-wing political violence.

Even an attack by Antifa operatives that targeted me personally for my conservative political views appeared in official records and data sets as nothing more than “obstructing law enforcement” on the rare occasion it appeared at all. It turns out the Left commits relatively little political violence when one does not count the political violence that the Left commits. (Testimony of Michael Knowles | Senate Subcommittee on Political Violence, October 2025

You can’t help but notice a common thread running through the talking points of the Democrat party. Same sex marriage, abortion, or a desire to transform our country into a socialist society all require a philosophy that perceives the individual as his own absolute.

  • I have the right to redefine marriage
  • I have the right to decide who lives and dies
  • I have the right to give away other people’s money

This is part of the reason why the “separation of church and state” is so often cited as a way to maintain the individual as the gauge by which all things are measured. Despite the context of the First Amendment being a safeguard to restrict government’s influence on Christianity, the Modern Day Democrat has invented a whole new perspective where the Bill of Rights was put in place to accommodate the person who wants to envision himself as his own bottom line and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

Of course, that isn’t an accurate interpretation of history, nor does it translate to a sustainable and coherent mindset. But the flaws there are inherent to that approach are not noticed when you’re able to successfully position yourself as a victim and anyone who disagrees with you as a villain.

This is the rationale that drives those who want to refer to President Trump as a tyrant and those who support him as Nazis. What’s really ironic is that those who are the most aggressive in leveling these kinds of accusations against the Republican party are the ones that resemble the Third Reich the most, given their control of the media and the violence they’ve exacted upon their political opponents (see sidebar).

Below is a response I wrote to the aforementioned question: “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party? No. MAGA is not the new Nazi party. The only way you can arrive at that conclusion is to not only take President Trump’s comments out of context, but you have to begin from a philosophical disposition that says the individual is his own absolute. In light of a situation that doesn’t exist, you have to believe yourself capable of speaking something into reality and then vilifying anyone with the capacity to reveal the lack of substance that characterizes your platform…

I read the “Donald Trump’s War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance” article you cited. I’m assuming that is part of your response to my asking for specific actions done by the Trump administration that qualify him as a Nazi.

The article cites President Trump saying, “We took away the Freedom of Speech” as an example of how Trump is deploying a fascist approach to government.

But did you read the context of his comment? I did. Here’s what the President said: “Only days ago, Nick Sortor was assaulted in Portland by a flag burning mob and we’ve made it one-year penalty for inciting riots. We took the freedom of speech away because that’s been through the courts and the courts said, you have freedom of speech. But what has happened is when they burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds. They’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots. So we’re going on that basis. We’re looking at it from — not from the freedom of speech, which I always felt strongly about, but never past the courts. This is what they do, is they incite — when you burn an American flag, you incite tremendous violence.”

“Freedom of Speech,” in the context the President was using, was referring to a legal sounding tactic used to justify saying that you have license to say and do whatever you want, and not have to take responsibility for what occurs as a result. In that context, that’s not a “right,” that’s not even an excuse. It’s a tool a coward uses to distract attention away from the true intent and substance of his actions.

It’s interesting that among those who insist that the President is infringing on the right to free speech are those that are very quick to say, “Hate speech isn’t free speech.” Suddenly, censorship is appropriate when a moment ago it was considered unconstitutional.

Fact of the matter is, the things you want to say constitute Fascism on the part of the Republican party should be recognizable to you, given the way the Left has killed, censored, and imprisoned their political opponents, all in the name of resisting the “threat to democracy,” when it fact, it’s a resurrection of accountability.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

I spent nine years in the USMC. Flag burning may be a form of free speech to you, but to anyone who’s ever made a sacrifice for what that flag stands for, it’s a toxic attack on the ones who gave their lives to defend the rights and principles you’re now using to desecrate their graves.

Every expert, every study, every poll, that you would cite to substantiate the idea that Trump is a Nazi, that his supporters are bigots, and that flag burning is a legitimate manifestation of free speech has as its fundamental starting the idea that the individual is his own absolute. Truth is therefore reduced to a personal preference and anyone who would dare dispute what you “believe,” is now a liar and a tyrant.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

There were a number of subject matter experts who were insisting that the Jew was to blame for all of the problems facing Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Thanks to the polls, studies, and conclusions published during that time, Hitler’s agenda was able to gain enough traction where it became a national battlecry.

You’re doing the same thing. In your feeble attempts to associate Trump and anyone who supports him as someone who would’ve endorsed the Holocaust, you’re promoting a paradigm that says a man can compete in female sports, marriage can be redefined, illegal immigrants can enter our country at will, trade deficits can be celebrated, etc., etc. And you’re promoting it using the same tactics the Nazis used to manipulate the populace leading up to World War II.

You are the very thing you claim to despise.

The Media

I) Intro: The Men of Issachar

In 1 Chronicles, 12:32, you have this:

from Issachar, men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do—200 chiefs, with all their relatives under their command; (1 Chron 12:32)

Issachar has the ability to advise the nation of Israel on what it was that constituted the right course of action. You see this is Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

The men of Issachar were the fewest of all, only 200, and yet as serviceable to David’s interest as those that brought in the greatest numbers, these few being in effect the whole tribe. For, 1. They were men of great skill above any of their neighbours, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do. They understood the natural times, could discern the face of the sky, were weather-wise, could advise their neighbours in the proper times for ploughing, sowing reaping, etc. Or the ceremonial times, the times appointed for the solemn feasts; therefore they are said to call the people to the mountain (Deut 33 19), for almanacs were not then so common as now. Or, rather, the political times; they understood public affairs, the temper of the nation, and the tendencies of the present events. It is the periphrasis of statesmen that they know the times, Esth 1 13. Those of that tribe were greatly intent on public affairs, had good intelligence from abroad and made a good use of it. They knew what Israel ought to do: from their observation and experience they learned both their own and others’ duty and interest.1

This verse represents a Divine endorsement of being politically astute – to “understand the times” means that you are knowledgeable about those individuals and events that influence policy and determine the course of our nation.

You see this reiterated in the New Testament when it comes to praying for our leaders:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (1 Tim 2:1-2)

You can’t effectively pray for your leaders unless you know who they are and the decisions they’re contemplating.

Some see Politics as an arena that falls short of a legitimate mission field because they see the Sovereign Will of God as being something that cannot be altered, either by voting or by prayer (Dan 2:21). Others see Politics as the ultimate manifestation of the gospel and in so doing, “…reduce the Christian faith from a pilgrim path to heaven into a socio-political scheme for the present world.”2

Neither extreme is healthy nor holy (Ecc 7:16-18). Rather, the “Christian Citizen” should engage current events as opportunities to serve others by championing those Truths that both point to God and benefit mankind.

J.I. Packer was a brilliant theologian who, in an article he wrote for “Christianity Today” in 1985 said:

Hence, although Christians are not to think of themselves as ever at home in this world but rather as sojourning aliens, travelers passing through a foreign land to the place where their treasures are stored awaiting their arrival (see 1 Peter 2:11; Matt. 6:19–20), Scripture forbids them to be indifferent to the benefits that flow from good government [see Prov 29:2; Matt 22:21; 2 Tim 2:1-2; 1 Pet 2:17]. Nor, therefore, should they hesitate to play their part in maximizing these benefits for others, as well as for themselves. The upholding of stable government by a law-abiding life, and helping it to fulfill its role by personal participation where this is possible, is as fitting for us today as it was for Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and Daniel (to look no further). We must see it as service of God and neighbor.4

Bottom line: We have a responsibility to be involved and aware of what’s going on in Politics and in our culture.

But how do you become aware? Where can you go to learn who comprises the decision makers within our nation’s government and the issues that they’re contending with?

The media.

II) Many Advisors

Proverbs 15:22 says:

Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed. (Prov 15:22)

You need to have a plan for the way you vote, how you’re going to pay your bills and where you’re going to go on vacation.

You need a plan in order to determine how you’re going to think.

Yet, you don’t have a Top Secret clearance, you’re not a part of the Oval Office, you’re not directly privy to those things that can influence the way you process yourself and the world around you.

So, from that standpoint, you’re dependent on the media in order to formulate your plans and inform your convictions.

The problem is not every resource you have available to you is reliable.

John Norvell was a newspaper editor and one of the first Senators from Michigan. At one point he wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson asking him for his recommendations of what books and newspapers to read in order to acquire “sound political knowledge.”5

Jefferson responded by saying:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle… General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.6

Just because it’s a headline doesn’t mean it’s a bottom line.

Bear in mind that when we say, “the media” in this conversation, we’re not referring only to the Journalistic profession. “Media” refers to any kind of published information, however it might be packaged.

  • A punch line (Prov 26:18-19)
  • A movie script
  • A song lyric (Dt 33:19 [“…if a man were permitted to make all the ballads he need not care who should make the laws of a nation” {Andrew Fletcher}]7)
  • A headline
  • A novel

One thing you want to be aware of: While the above bullet list implies a collection of distinct mediums, the fact of the matter is many of the more well-known media brands are subsidiaries of a larger conglomerate.

In a WebFX article entitled, “The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media,” 6 companies are listed that represent the bulk of what dictates the headlines, the punchlines, the hooks and the books that we consume every day.8

For example, “National Amusements” includes :

  • CBS
  • CMT
  • MTV
  • Paramount
  • Show Time
  • VH1
  • Viacom
  • Nickelodeon
  • Simon & Schuster
  • TV Guide

Disney owns:

  • ABC
  • LucasFilm
  • ESPN
  • A&E

Comcast, which is an internet service provider, owns NBC along with Universal Studios. NBC Universal own Capitol Music, Geffen Records and more.

TimeWarner owns CNN, TBS, Warner Brothers Entertainment…

Most of your major news sources answer to an umbrella company that includes any one of a number of mediums that cover both sports and entertainment.

In other words, however these companies want to portray what’s true, they can do it through a variety of media outlets that go beyond a mere commentator and a television camera.

You also have Social Media. New research shows that 71% of Americans get their news from Social Media platforms.9

You have access to “many advisors,” but how do you determine which one is worth listening to?

III) Test the Spirits

1 John 4:1-3 says:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 Jn 4:1-3)

While it’s tempting to process what John is saying as something that applies exclusively to the gospel, you want to remember what it says in Ephesians 6:12:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:12)

You don’t want to lose sight of the spiritual realities that serve as the fuel and the foundation for the practical tensions that exist in our own lives as well as on the national and global stage.

It all comes down to a spiritual struggle. This isn’t just “media bias” and it’s more than the Surgeon General or the Electoral College. Yes, these are important topics and essential institutions, everything inevitably falls beneath the heading of a spiritual contest.

A “lie” is anything that’s not true. It’s the signature tactic of Satan himself (Jn 8:44). However a falsehood manifests itself, regardless of the subject matter or its severity, its source is a dynamic whose intent is to steal, kill and destroy (Jn 10:10).

By subscribing to a lie, you place yourself on a path that, however incremental it may appear, adds weight to the load you’re having to carry as you navigate the challenges and questions that are a part of the human experience.

In time, that weight will prove lethal:

For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; 33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm. (Prov 1:31-33 [see also Ps 49:20; Prov 11:14; Hos 4:6)

This is why it’s important to “cross examine” those sources that purport to be telling the truth.

In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines. (Prov 18:17)

You want to test the spirits and not just accept things at face value. You do that by first asking how the source answers the questions, “Who’s in charge?”

A) Who’s In Charge?

This goes back to the core of 1 John 4:1-3. Does the source of your information has as its philosophical foundation an acknowledgement of the death and resurrection of Christ as a historical fact?

On the surface, that may seem a little far-fetched and perhaps a little over the top. How many companies do you know have a “Statement of Faith” included as part of their corporate mission statement?

But even if you’re not publicly acknowledging the empty tomb, you can still be on the right side of the issues if you’re willing to be used by God to disseminate the truth.

A good example of that is King Cyrus…

King Cyrus was the King of Babylon who gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple and the city of Jerusalem (Ezra 5:13; Is 45:13). Yet, King Cyrus was not a believer…

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me here is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord and there is no other. (Is 45:4-6)

Put this in contemporary terms…

Would you have voted for Cyrus? According to the criteria that some use, the answer would be, “No.” But you have to remember that God can catch a fly ball with either a dirty mitt or a brand-new glove. The issue isn’t the condition of the mitt, but the skill of the Hand inside.

With Cyrus, you had someone who was used by God to accomplish the will of God and that’s the bottom line. However spiritually or morally bankrupt a person may be, you want to be mindful that if the presence of sin is a determining factor, that no one can be trusted to lead effectively or wisely.

Look for where God is working and support those who are being used by Him to do His bidding (Mk 9:40). Look to those media sources that, however “secular” they may appear, are nevertheless publishing information that is credible both in the sight of man and God.

When they report on those issues or feature op-ed pieces pertaining to the issues that dominate the headlines…

  • Are all sides of the issue addressed with the same amount of verbiage?
  • Does one side get treated with sympathy while the other side is viewed as cruel and uncaring?
  • Is there a subtle endorsement of an anti-biblical perspective?

That’s something to consider.

And remember too that you don’t have to lie to be guilty of not telling the whole truth.

Consider the following:

Pharisees Doubt The Resurrection of Christ

All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was the Son of God. We sat down with several high-ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts.

From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was. Thankfully there were steady and committed hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors.

“We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”

“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”

Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus.

“I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”

Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65).

“It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once.  Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more and you need to move on.”

When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”

Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-181 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.

“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).”

“But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”

Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?

“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”

At no time does this article “lie.” There’s nothing inaccurate about what’s being said, but the words used to describe Peter as opposed to the Jewish and Roman authorities position his testimony as questionable. The majority of the article focuses on those who see the Resurrection as a hoax and while they do give some space to Peter’s perspective, the words they use to describe both him and his mindset are laced with cynicism and suspicion.

This is a great example of how you can be “honest” and at the same time manipulative.

You want to vet your sources by evaluating the way in which they maintain an impartial disposition with the words they use, the people they quote and even the images they display.

And should you encounter someone insisting that kind of perspective is a violation of church and state, you can respond by saying…

The Establishment Cause was not designed to limit Christianity’s influence on government, but to restrict government’s influence on Christianity. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant.

Sixteen times Congress called for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting during the Revolutionary War.10 The Constitutional Convention met in 1787.  Among the first motions carried by the newly formed Congress in 1789 was a law to hire and pay chaplains for each house.11

We say, “So help me God” when we get ready to testify in court. We say “one nation, under God” when we pledge allegiance to the flag. It’s common for a public servant to place his or her hand on a Bible when they’re getting ready to be sworn into office.

Any resource you attempt to quote as a supposed indicator of our founding fathers having a secular approach to government is inevitably a comment taken out of context and is indicative of either a personal bias or an ignorance of history, neither of which constitute a credible perspective.

The Bible has been our “go to” resource for all things moral and spiritual for the last two centuries. The only ones who oppose it are those that are determined to be their own absolute and therefore need to pose as a victim of an intolerant society in order to avoid that line of questioning that reveals their disposition to be both selfish and absurd.

The issue of religion is not defined by the presence or the absence of a church steeple. As a member of the human race, you are “religious” by default in that in order for the human experience to have any meaning, the individual needs to determine for themselves what it is that constitutes the basis for their existence and the standard by which their moral behavior is measured. However you arrive at those absolutes determines your religious paradigm.

Whenever you hear someone be critical of “religion,” though it depends on the context of the conversation, more often than not they’re asserting themselves as their own deity. While they attempt to conceal the true nature of their viewpoint by suggesting that religion provides no real, logical explanation, given the supernatural dynamic that characterizes the origin of the universe etc. Fact is, the “science” they would assert as a more substantive answer is characterized by probability values that go beyond the boundaries of absurd.

What they cling to as an alternative way to explain how the universe came to be and the intangible intricacies of the human experience doesn’t quality as an explanation as much as it does an unwillingness to concede the reality of something greater than themselves.

When they speak of “reason” and “compassion,” they are invoking those characteristics according to however they define what is logical and benevolent. There is no standard apart from the one they’re comfortable with and in that regard, they are their own bottom line.

Those who are the most vocal in their argument for the separation of church and state are not looking to “separate” the church from the state as much as they are wanting to establish a new church where the principles coming from the pulpit are more in line with what they want to hear.

They decide what’s right, moral and just. There is no authority apart from the one they’re willing to acknowledge, but…

You can’t maintain that kind of perspective without extending the same kind of methodology to everyone else. And if everyone is their own absolute, then there is no right or wrong and your viewpoint is valid provided you’re surrounded by those who agree with you.

That’s why there’s such an emphasis on the Supreme Court and the Oval Office. You can manipulate these entities to a certain extent by the way you vote, but you can’t edit the Word of God.

But if you don’t yield to the Word of God, you are then basing your entire existence on a human agency which is destined to either die, quit or fail.

By eliminating God from your worldview, you reduce yourself to a lucky accident, the universe to a pointless mistake and every rule, given and absolute to a temporary coupon whose validity is determined by either the mood of the individual or the consensus of the culture.

You are not standing on solid ground and if the resources you refer to for your news is not grounded in something more than a receipt or a humanistic worldview, your new is not standing on solid ground and isn’t news promoting all that needs to be heard.

B) Sound Doctrine

“Doctrine” (didaskalia  [dih-dahs-kah-LEE-ah]) is just another word for “teaching.”12

It says in 2 Timothy 4:3:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Tim 4:3)

Another way to determine the substance of the resources you’re looking at is to look for the presence of “Mickey Hood…”

Mickey Hood
M Mobs They spend more time talking about Labels, Mobs and Crowds than they do a Name, a Person and a Choice.
C Characters They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content.
H Hurt They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
H Honest They spend more time trying to sound honest rather than actually telling the truth.
D Decisions They spend more time defending bad decisions than they do applauding good choices.

Anytime you hear these tactics being deployed, you want to be aware that they are often used by people who don’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

For example, here are two different articles talking about the way in which illegal immigrants have been able to secure free turkey dinners at the expense of New York residents who depend on the charities that are now being consumed by those who’ve crossed the border illegally.

Displaced by war, persecution, violence, human rights abuses, poverty or the climate crisis, newcomers in recent years have fueled a massive migration movement to cities across the United States.

Some have been bussed up from Texas while others have arrived on their own, straining local resources in a city that under a local mandate must offer shelter to all.

While other American hubs have received a growing number of migrants, New York City has become the epicenter of the crisis. The number of newly arrived asylum-seekers since spring 2022 has surpassed 100,000, with costs for housing and other basic services projected to run up to $12 billion in the coming years.

Unprecedented migration in the Western Hemisphere has posed a steep challenge for the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden, at the US Southern border and in cities like New York, where asylum-seekers choose to go as their cases wend through US immigration courts, often for years.13

Compare that article to this one:

Some 125,000 illegal aliens have arrived in New York City in a little more than a year. Just a couple of weeks ago, a team of researchers from FAIR traveled to the Big Apple, where we witnessed illegal aliens at the Roosevelt Hotel receive free food in what used to be a restaurant open to the public.

Now, the migrant crisis is impacting the Thanksgiving holiday of one Queens neighborhood. New York City Housing Authority’s Queensbridge Houses residents look forward to weekly mobile food pantries, but over 8,000 migrants have moved in over the past year, straining the resources meant for New Yorkers…

Fox 5 New York says free food has become a source of tension between New Yorkers and newly arrived migrants who are now living off the system. Struggling Americans shouldn’t be put behind those who broke American immigration laws to get here, but that’s what continues to happen.14

Can you see how a message can be communicated without stating it verbatim?

This is why you want to engage in what one resource refers to as “Lateral Reading.”

Conclusion

While we’ve been talking about the importance of vetting your sources when it comes to the news and politics, the same thing can be said about the way you read and study God’s Word.

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

You always want to ensure you’re basing your convictions on the whole of God’s Word and not just one verse that may or may not be unwittingly taken out of context.

This goes back to being a “worker…”

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)

So just like you want to be in a perpetual pursuit of the “whole story,” you also want to be grounded on the whole of God’s Word in order to ensure that you’re not just making an appearance, but you’re making a legitimate difference using His Power and His Truth.

  1. Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 Chronicles 12, Bible Study Tools, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-chronicles/12.html, accessed November 24, 2023
  2. “Christianity Today Institute”, “How To Recognize a Christian Citizen”, J.I. Packer, April 19, 1985, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1985/april-19/how-to-recognize-christian-citizen.html, accessed November 24, 2023
  3. Ibid
  4. Ibid (additional Scripture references added)
  5. “Founders Online”, “To Thomas Jefferson from John Norvell, 9, May 1807”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5565, accessed November 24, 2023
  6. “Library of Congress”, “Image 2 of Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807”, https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text, accessed November 24, 2023
  7. “Andrew Fletcher” “Wikiquote”, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Fletcher, accessed November 25, 2023
  8. “The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media”, “WebFx”, https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/, accessed November 24, 2023
  9. “New Research Shows that 71% of Americans Not Get New Content via Social Platforms”, Andere Hutchinson, January 12, 2021, “Social Media Today”, https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/new-research-shows-that-71-of-americans-now-get-news-content-via-social-pl/593255/, accessed November 24, 2023
  10. “March 20, 1781”, “American Devotional Series”, http://www.americandevotionalseries.com/the-revolutionary-war/march-20-1781/, accessed November 25, 2023
  11. “History of the Chaplaincy”, “Office of the Chaplain”, https://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html, accessed November 25, 2023
  12. “Blue Letter Bible” “didaskalia”, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1319/kjv/tr/0-1/, accessed November 29, 2023
  13. “CNN”, “For Migrants Still Coping with Traumatic Journeys to America, Thanksgiving Will be a Day Like Any Other”, Ray Sanchez, November 23, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/migrants-thanksgiving-new-york-city/index.html, accessed November 29, 2023
  14. “Fair”, “Low Income New Yorkers Lose Out on Thanksgiving Turkeys as Migrants Gobble Them Up”, Joey Chester, November 21, 2023, https://www.fairus.org/blog/2023/11/21/low-income-new-yorkers-lose-out-thanksgiving-turkeys-migrants-gobble-them, accessed November 29, 2023
  15. Image credit: https://libguides.uwgb.edu/evalinfo

Because That’s What You’ve Been Told

This was a post originally published in 2021, but the content is still just as relevant today as it was back then.

Enjoy!

For the last four years, you were convinced that regardless of what President Trump accomplished or said, he was a fool and a fiend. Therefore, anything he did was suspect and could be comfortably categorized as either irrelevant or detrimental…

Because that’s what you’ve been told. His election wasn’t credible. He colluded with Russia. We spent two years and 32 million dollars investigating a claim that turned out to be untrue. But in your mind, he’s still guilty and the 2016 election wasn’t legitimate…

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

He should’ve been removed from office. He made a call to the President of the Ukraine and you sat glued to the TV watching a parade of unelected officials insist that Trump was guilty of abusing his authority. The Ukrainian President himself insisted that the call in question was devoid of any such conversation, implied or otherwise. But you still believe that Trump was guilty and the only reason he wasn’t removed from office is because the Senate refused to do their job.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

COVID-19 has a 98% recovery rate and of those that have passed away as a result of the virus, 94% had, on the average , 2 potentially life-threatening pre-existing conditions. The CDC has said it’s not an airborne disease. Yet, you still wear a mask and support the idea of staying distant, closed and compromised and believe anyone who wants to get the vaccine and move on is reckless, selfish and even cruel.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

There’s over 1,000 signed affidavits and sworn testimonies testifying to the fact that this past election was fraudulent. The State of Texas has a publicly accessible pdf that details why Dominion’s software is not a secure voting mechanism. President Trump delivered a speech that detailed several instances of suspicious activity. It wasn’t aired on any major network because several courts and attorneys insisted that none of what had been submitted constituted any real evidence. You’ve not read any of the testimonies yourself, you weren’t in any of the swing states to observe what went on, but you nevertheless believe that President Biden’s election was honorable and accurate.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

President Trump said nothing that could be construed as a call to violence on January 6th. A transcript of his speech is available for public review. Anderson Cooper from CNN interviewed someone posing as a cameraman merely filming what was going on in the Capital. It turns out, however, he’s part of a BLM group and was caught on film agitating the crowd and urging people to “Burn this sh** down!” Yet, any questions pertaining to the true political convictions of those who broke into the Capital and evaluate them on an individual basis as opposed to labeling the entire crowd as insurrectionists is dismissed as pointless. This would be a healthy and logical step to take to find out how multiple peaceful rallies held both in Washington and throughout the US suddenly took a violent turn. But it doesn’t matter. You believe Trump and anyone who supports him is violent, godless, racist and a threat to Democracy…

…because that’s what you’ve been told.

Freedom of Speech is now determined by what party you support. Arguments are won not according to the substance of your content, but on the effectiveness of your methods. American interests and security concerns are prideful restrictions that only people who lack compassion would even consider. Moral Absolutes are cruel and antiquated traditions that need to give way to open dialogue and the right to be happy. And you heartily agree with all of this..

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

With few exceptions, none of us have actually worked with Trump, we’re not on a first name basis with Biden, we’re not experts in viruses and even when we attempt to google things and seek out additional information, we’re still drawn to those sources that possess a philosophical bent that leans in our preferred direction. In other words, we are what we eat and we’re hesitant to listen to anything or anyone that doesn’t agree with our worldview.

When you think of the current political climate, then, it’s not so much about what’s true as much as it’s about who we believe is telling the truth. Is it Anderson Cooper or Jesse Waters? Is it Newsmax or NBC? Are we listening to media committed to informing public opinion or are we listening to resources determined to shape public opinion?

How can we tell?

One thing that can used as a good indicator is to ask the question, “Am I being presented with a commentary on what’s being done or who’s doing it?”

For example, Moral Failings are heinous. But the public reaction to those indiscretions is bound to be different if one instance is presented as a misstep and the other situation is displayed as grounds for dismissal. If the activity is the same, but the reporting is completely different based on the personality involved, you’re not listening to “news” as much as you’re listening to a “campaign.” You’re not hearing topics as much as you’re hearing tactics, regardless of what the headline says. In that moment, you have legitimate cause for concern. Reason being is that among the strategies typically used by sinister elements who are promoting an agenda is to silence their opposition by casting them as villains. By doing so, anything that person champions is now associated with something reprehensible and whatever platform is being proposed as an option now looks far more appealing regardless of how toxic it may be.

Does this sound familiar?

How many times have you seen a person been excoriated for their behavior while their political counterpart isn’t even criticized? How many times has a particular issue been promoted by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree doesn’t just have a different opinion, but they are immoral? Truth is not how certain facts are manipulated, it’s how all the facts are evaluated. And you don’t arrive at the truth without seeking both sides of an issue and dismissing those accounts that are focused more on personality than principle.

We’re at a point where we can no longer allow our convictions to be dictated by media outlets that are focused more on who said something as opposed to what was actually said. We’re all dependent on the headlines to some extent. But we can choose who to listen to. We can seek out second opinions and we can resolve to filter out those voices that are more preoccupied with assaulting someone’s character than objectively examining their content. You’ve got to be like the Bereans that Paul talks about in Acts 17 – people who examined what was being said to find out if it was true and not let the personality speaking be more of a priority than the point they’re making. That’s how you arrive at a legitimate bottom line.

Now, you may not agree with any of this and if you’re determined to trade truth for accuracy and gossip for substance, chances are you’re doing so because you’re convinced that any news or information coming from anything or anyone other than those who share your worldview are bogus.

And why do you feel that way?

Because that’s what you’ve been told.For the last four years, you were convinced that regardless of what President Trump accomplished or said, he was a fool and a fiend. Therefore, anything he did was suspect and could be comfortably categorized as either irrelevant or detrimental…

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

His election wasn’t credible. He colluded with Russia. We spent two years and 32 million dollars investigating a claim that turned out to be untrue. But in your mind, he’s still guilty and the 2016 election wasn’t legitimate…

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

He should’ve been removed from office. He made a call to the President of the Ukraine and you sat glued to the TV watching a parade of unelected officials insist that Trump was guilty of abusing his authority. The Ukrainian President himself insisted that the call in question was devoid of any such conversation, implied or otherwise. But you still believe that Trump was guilty and the only reason he wasn’t removed from office is because the Senate refused to do their job.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

COVID-19 has a 98% recovery rate and of those that have passed away as a result of the virus, 94% had, on the average , 2 potentially life-threatening pre-existing conditions. The CDC has said it’s not an airborne disease. Yet, you still wear a mask and support the idea of staying distant, closed and compromised and believe anyone who wants to get the vaccine and move on is reckless, selfish and even cruel.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

There’s over 1,000 signed affidavits and sworn testimonies testifying to the fact that this past election was fraudulent. The State of Texas has a publicly accessible pdf that details why Dominion’s software is not a secure voting mechanism. President Trump delivered a speech that detailed several instances of suspicious activity. It wasn’t aired on any major network because several courts and attorneys insisted that none of what had been submitted constituted any real evidence. You’ve not read any of the testimonies yourself, you weren’t in any of the swing states to observe what went on, but you nevertheless believe that President Biden’s election was honorable and accurate.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

President Trump said nothing that could be construed as a call to violence on January 6th. A transcript of his speech is available for public review. Anderson Cooper from CNN interviewed someone posing as a cameraman merely filming what was going on in the Capital. It turns out, however, he’s part of a BLM group and was caught on film agitating the crowd and urging people to “Burn this sh** down!” Yet, any questions pertaining to the true political convictions of those who broke into the Capital and evaluate them on an individual basis as opposed to labeling the entire crowd as insurrectionists is dismissed as pointless. This would be a healthy and logical step to take to find out how multiple peaceful rallies held both in Washington and throughout the US suddenly took a violent turn. But it doesn’t matter. You believe Trump and anyone who supports him is violent, godless, racist and a threat to Democracy…

…because that’s what you’ve been told.

Freedom of Speech is now determined by what party you support. Arguments are won not according to the substance of your content, but on the effectiveness of your methods. American interests and security concerns are prideful restrictions that only people who lack compassion would even consider. Moral Absolutes are cruel and antiquated traditions that need to give way to open dialogue and the right to be happy. And you heartily agree with all of this..

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

With few exceptions, none of us have actually worked with Trump, we’re not on a first name basis with Biden, we’re not experts in viruses and even when we attempt to google things and seek out additional information, we’re still drawn to those sources that possess a philosophical bent that leans in our preferred direction. In other words, we are what we eat and we’re hesitant to listen to anything or anyone that doesn’t agree with our worldview. When you think of the current political climate, then, it’s not so much about what’s true as much as it’s about who we believe is telling the truth. Is it Anderson Cooper or Dan Bongino? Is it Newsmax or NBC? Are we listening to media committed to informing public opinion or are we listening to resources determined to shape public opinion?

How can we tell?

One thing that can used as a good indicator is to ask the question, “Am I being presented with a commentary on what’s being done or who’s doing it?” For example, Moral Failings are heinous. But the public reaction to those indiscretions is bound to be different if one instance is presented as a misstep and the other situation is displayed as grounds for dismissal. If the activity is the same, but the reporting is completely different based on the personality involved, you’re not listening to “news” as much as you’re listening to a “campaign.” You’re not hearing topics as much as you’re hearing tactics, regardless of what the headline says.

In that moment, you have legitimate cause for concern. Reason being is that among the strategies typically used by sinister elements who are promoting an agenda is to silence their opposition by casting them as villains. By doing so, anything that person champions is now associated with something reprehensible and whatever platform is being proposed as an option now looks far more appealing regardless of how toxic it may be.

Does this sound familiar?

How many times have you seen a person been excoriated for their behavior while their political counterpart isn’t even criticized? How many times has a particular issue been promoted by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree doesn’t just have a different opinion, but they are immoral? Truth is not how certain facts are manipulated, it’s how all the facts are evaluated. And you don’t arrive at the truth without seeking both sides of an issue and dismissing those accounts that are focused more on personality than principle.

We’re at a point where we can no longer allow our convictions to be dictated by media outlets that are focused more on who said something as opposed to what was actually said. We’re all dependent on the headlines to some extent. But we can choose who to listen to. We can seek out second opinions and we can resolve to filter out those voices that are more preoccupied with assaulting someone’s character than objectively examining their content.

You’ve got to be like the Bereans that Paul talks about in Acts 17 – people who examined what was being said to find out if it was true and not let the personality speaking be more of a priority than the point they’re making. That’s how you arrive at a legitimate bottom line.

Now, you may not agree with any of this and if you’re determined to trade truth for accuracy and gossip for substance, chances are you’re doing so because you’re convinced that any news or information coming from anything or anyone other than those who share your worldview are bogus.

And why do you feel that way?

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

The Fundamental Dispute

People who see themselves as their own bottom line define truth as whatever they want to believe in that moment. Anyone who disagrees can then be logically labeled a liar who needs to be silenced.

Executive Summary:

I) The fundamental dispute is what triggers all of the tension we see in our society today. It all comes down to the way you answer the question, “What is truth?”

II) You’re going to answer it in one of two ways: Truth is defined according to what is real, or truth is defined according to how I feel. Those who define it according to the way they feel see truth as whatever the individual wants to believe.

III) You can’t disagree with someone who sees truth according to what they prefer because, in that moment, you’re not speaking the “truth” and you can be logically categorized as a liar. If that’s the case, you’re not merely mistaken, you’re immoral. You’re not just wrong, you are evil. If you’re a politician, you’re not a leader, you’re a tyrant. Those who support tyrants aren’t voters, they’re Nazis. This is how Liberals are able to silence their political opponents.

IV) At some point the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore and the Liberal can’t champion their approach without sounding both selfish and foolish. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you, if you can get them to feel sorry for you. Every major Left wing talking point is framed in the context of a victim because you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being categorized as cruel and hateful.

V) Regardless of how compelling your case may be, as far being able to demonstrate the flaws in a Liberal’s logic, you have to remember that when you’re contending with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they are processing your perspective the same way they perceive themselves. If truth is nothing more than what an individual wants to believe, you’re not correcting them as much as you oppressing them by forcing your beliefs on them.

VI) Ultimately, you’re not questioning their logic, as much as you are challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong. The only way you’re going to make an impact is to allow them the opportunity to function according to the same standards they would impose on everyone else. The moment they’re inclined to say, “That’s not fair,” they’re appealing to a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – a concept they want to say doesn’t exist. At that point, even if they’re willing to concede that you have a point, those who are listening to your conversation will recognize the unsustainable characteristic of the Liberal’s platform.

I) The Fundamental Dispute

Why Resisting Authoritarianism Matters…!

That’s the title of a recent Rachel Maddow broadcast.

What is it that Maddow and people who think like her justifies referring to President Trump as a tyrant that needs to be resisted?

And of course, she’s not only referring to the Oval Office, but also to everyone who voted for him, which includes the majority of the country.

Why does she see a President that has already delivered a substantial portion of the platform he ran on as a problem that needs to be solved and a threat that needs to be addressed?

People who see themselves as their own bottom line define truth as whatever they want to believe in that moment. Anyone who disagrees can then be logically labeled a liar who needs to be silenced. This is how Liberals are able to introduce toxic policies into the marketplace while at the same time justify destroying those that oppose them.

Anytime you refer to someone as a tyrant or an authoritarian, you’re implying they can now be disposed of in the same way that dictators have been eliminated in the past. You can’t champion that kind of approach without sounding morally reprehensible, but you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you.

By positioning yourself as a victim, you’re not evaluated as much as you’re accommodated. No one is paying attention to what’s real and accurate when people are rushing to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.

You can’t adjust the perspective of someone who believes that there’s nothing to correct. All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, historical truths, the rule of law, and medical realities are non-existent in the absence of a fixed point of reference. You are never guilty or mistaken if you can say the truth is just someone else’s opinion.

While it’s not always obvious you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured, you can tell simply by asking them some revealing questions.

For example, what is a woman?

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)

However obvious defining a woman may by in terms of their anatomy, their chromosomes, and their ability to bear children – because defining a woman in those terms implies a reality that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – that question is never answered directly. Rather, as Dr. Michelle Forcier says, “It can be many things to many people.”

II) What is Real of How You Feel?

In other words, the truth about the way in which you define a woman is whatever you want to believe.

Truth is whatever you want to believe…

This is why Liberals hate President Trump, this is why movie stars are willing to endorse same sex marriage, even if they’re not homosexual themselves. This is why Charlie Kirk was murdered, this is why Socialism is embraced as a superior alternative to Capitalism, and this is why Rachel Maddow says that our democracy is right now consolidating into a would be authoritarian state at the hands of a would be dictator.

III) Let Them be Revealed by Their Own Logic

Any reference to a transcendent bottom line has to be demonized in order to distract from the lack of substance and positive results that characterizes the Liberal mindset.

While you can’t reason with someone who’s unreasonable, you can still make an impact by holding the Liberal to their own standard and let their reaction prove your point (Prov 26:5).

  • If truth is whatever it is I want to believe, than I can call you a liar and not be wrong.
  • Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. But then she goes to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” How can she believe that what she’s about to say at that point in her presentation has any credibility if she’s just declared that there is no definitive truth? It’s similar to what happens when you say there are no Absolutes. That statement, in and of itself, is an absolute, so it’s a self-refuting statement. If truth is relative, how can I trust anything you say?
  • If you’ve been charged with a crime, who do you want for your jury? People who define the truth of your innocence according to what actually happened, or whatever they want to believe?

IV) Silence is Golden…and Necessary

The Left has no recourse once the falsehood of their victimized status becomes evident. Their attempts to establish themselves as people who need to be pitied begin by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as being nonsensical. They’re restricted by the ignorance of those that surround them. When doesn’t work, they proceed to refer to their opponent as unethical. They’re immoral, they’re hypocrites, they’re lying. Now the Liberal is perceived as being the victim of morally corrupt behavior on the part of ignorant degenerates.

When that fails to vindicate the cause of the Left, they resort to referring to their opposition as tyrannical. Trump is an authoritarian, a tyrant, and all those who support a tyrant are then logically categorized as dangerous, fascists, and Nazis.

Notice how each of these tactics focuses on the intelligence and the character of the one who’s speaking as opposed to the substance of what’s being said. That’s what you do when you can’t compete with the credibility of an individual’s platform. Silence is golden and absolutely necessary when you can’t defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding selfish and foolish. When you reach that point, you stop focusing your attention on what’s being said. Instead, you attack the individual.

V) Conclusion

While Liberals are incredibly talented when it comes to generating a lot of noisy distractions, after a while the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, regardless of the tactics used to focus the attention away from the fundamental dispute.

It’s not Racism, it’s not the economy, illegal immigration or same sex marriage.

How do you define Truth?

The way you answer that question is the foundation upon which all of the tension in our society is based.

John Adams said:

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798)

Pete Buttigieg says that Democrats have been slow in understanding how people get their information. North Carolina Senate minority leader Sydney Batch said, “The Republicans are much better at branding and messaging than we are,” she said. “We will sit here and give you 150 words where we probably should have only used five.”

Regardless of how the Democrats want to communicate or what they want to say, if their message remains grounded in the idea that Truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, they are assuming a country that is distinct from the one for which the Constitution was designed. The extent to which they succeed or fail depends entirely on the resolve of those who see the issues facing our nation, not as positions held by a specific party or reinforced by judiciously selected data, but as a contest between those who see the human experience in terms of principles, and those who dismiss the existence of any reality that doesn’t line up with their preferences.

How do you define Truth?

That is the fundamental dispute.

Jesus Was a Liberal…?

There was a question posed on Quora that asked, “Jesus is coming back and He hates what liberals are doing. Do you think liberals will be able to stand against Jesus?”

Most of the responses insisted that Christ was a Liberal and anyone who disagrees with the Liberal platform opposes Christ and the gospel.

Here’s my response…

Here’s the problem…

Truth.

You want to believe that unless a Christian is giving money or giving in, they’re either a hypocrite or cruel and hateful.

That’s not how it works.

Any virtue deployed in the absence of Truth is nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. Charity is a subsidy, diversity is contamination, justice is favoritism, and love is pure selfishness.

That’s a hard pill to swallow for someone who’s been conditioned to see themselves as their own absolute, especially if they like to perceive themselves as sophisticated and compassionate.

And you can do that when you are the gauge by which all things are measured. There are no Principles, only Preferences, which is why anytime you try to push back against their narrative they feel completely justified in saying, “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Jesus was very vocal in talking about how you are to take care of the orphans and widows (Jas 1:27). He talks about when you feed the hungry and give the thirsty something to drink, you’re doing that as unto Him (Matt 25:35–40).

But He also talks about the wise and the foolish builders (Matt 7:24–27), as well as the importance of hard work (Matt 25: 14–30). He also talks about shooting yourself in the foot and then trying to blame your pain on the person or principle that told you not to pull the trigger to begin with (Gal 6:7).

Liberals applaud people who drive on the wrong side of the road because of the way it allows them to ignore the flow of traffic themselves. Any notion of being accountable to Someone greater than themselves is demonized as legalistic and narrow minded. Their image of Christ is Someone Who smiles at what put Him on the cross and what puts people in hell.

Again, that’s not the way it works (Matt 7:23; Rom 6:23).

The question isn’t whether or not God loves you. Rather, it’s whether or not you love God (Jn 14:21). And just like there’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them, there’s also a distinction between Christian charity and destructive subsidies.

And what is that difference?

Truth (Prov 1:7; 2 Thess 2:10–12).

How Do You Know?

If you were asked, “How do you know that Jesus really did die and come back to life?” how would you respond, if you couldn’t point to the Bible as a Resource?

It’s Current

We wouldn’t still be talking about the Resurrection today unless it really happened.

Simon Ben Kosiba is one of a handful of “counterfeit” Jewish Messiahs that were revered as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy, but we don’t hear about them today because…

…they’re dead.

It works.

You live your life according to biblical principles, you benefit. If you opt to ignore those same principles, you have to deal with the consequences.

Some may respond by saying, “Well, it works for you…” While that’s not always the case, more often than not, that response comes from a mindset that wants to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences in order to justify maintaining themselves as their own bottom line.

If you’re not sinning, then you’re not lying, you’re not stealing, and you’re loving your neighbor as yourself. You’re on a much better path than if you were doing things differently and that applies to everyone.

It makes sense.

Every “religion” empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. After a while, that starts to sound a little suspicious in that the focus is more on you and what you’re capable of despite the obvious limitations of the human condition.  As a Christian, the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. That makes more sense in that the emphasis is now more on God – Who He is and what He’s capable of rather than on the individual and what they’re obviously not able to do.

For further reading, check out COEXIST.

Racism: Absolutely Not

I) Trinity Missionary Baptist Church

When I was stationed in HI, I was a member of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church which was right outside the gates of Pearl Harbor. I was the only white person in the congregation. I played drums as part of their music ministry and it was an extraordinary experience!

There was never even the slightest hint of racial tension. It wasn’t about ethnicity, it was all about God’s grace. Yes, it was a little awkward when I first walked in. I was a guest of the organ player and when I determined to join that first morning, no one was especially sure what I was doing. But the first Wednesday night rehearsal that all changed when it became apparent that I could groove.

We made an album, we were nominated for an award that had us in tuxedos and evening gowns. We played all over the island and sometimes our Sunday morning worship services went beyond three hours. It was an amazing experience. And not just from the standpoint of the sweet, sanctified funk that we created. I had never eaten ribs before and I still remember the sound of a kettle of black eyed peas being poured into a serving bowl…

Nasty!

Autographed copy of "My Life With Dr. Martin Luther King" I received from Correta Scott King

Signed copy of “My Life With Dr. Martin Luther King” Coretta Scott King was kind enough to autograph for me.

But can you see why I’m not just baffled but even frustrated how the flame of “race” is constantly being fanned by people who seem to thrive on division? They make these outrageous statements, they assert these realities that intentionally ignore the fact that racism exists primarily in the minds of those who can benefit by it – either by the acquisition of votes and power or the proliferation of the idea it’s not necessary to take responsibility for one’s actions.

Are there individuals out there that disgrace themselves by attempting to elevate themselves at the expense of another based solely on the pigmentation of their skin?

Sure.

Pride and ignorance are sicknesses that some make no attempt to remedy with the healing medicine of common sense and Truth.

But to cite injustice and bigotry as the primary reason why many minorities are poor and, in some cases, lawless requires an intentional dismissal of those statistics that reveal poor choices being made due to absence of character.

Choosing to drop out of High School, choosing to get pregnant out of wedlock, in some cases, even choosing to remain unemployed because of the government subsidies that can be obtained by remaining jobless, are choices and not situations that are forced upon you.

What is Racism?

Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” In up until the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the term “Racism” described the discrimination and the persecution represented by Jim Crowe laws, the KKK, segregation and the myriad of ways in which black people were excluded and prevented from being able to engage those opportunities that were otherwise available to everyone else. It wasn’t just unfair, in some instances, it was violent to the point of being lethal.

Today Racism is much different. In addition to things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action which, taken together, make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, being racist is considered by most to be a dishonorable and an offensive mindset.

Still, there are some very vocal types who insist that racism is still very much alive and well in the form of job discrimination, housing discrimination, racial profiling, police brutality, the school to prison pipeline, the practice of “stop and frisk” as well as harsher prison sentences.

On the surface, some of these observations appear credible. But upon closer inspection, it’s evident that there are other factors that play a substantial role in producing the environments and the circumstances that some minorities lament as being solely the result of a system that is intent on persecuting and limiting the African American community.

Let’s take a look…

II) How Can You Argue That Racism is not a Driving Factor in Income Inequality?

How can you argue that racism is not a driving factor in income inequality?  That was the question posed to Ben Shapiro in a recent round table discussion. He responded by saying, “Because it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.” His response made the other two featured speakers laugh, as though what he was suggesting was ludicrous to the point of being comical (click here to view the video).

The thing is, it’s not just income inequality that drives the race issue. The underlying mantra of those who insist that the US is still a racist country is that if you’re black, you’re:

…and all this because of an prejudiced system that is resolved to oppress you simply because of your ethnicity.

III) A Deeply Racist Country

The first question on the table is: “Is poverty a result of racism?” Is it the pigmentation of one’s skin and the way in which some will unjustly attach a series of character flaws to a person’s ethnicity – is that what produces the community of minorities who struggle to generate enough revenue to put food on the table?

According to an article by Chris Arnade, America is still a deeply racist country. He says:

We tell the stories of success and say: see anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, further denigrating those who can’t escape poverty. It plays into the false and pernicious narrative that poverty is somehow a fault of desire, a fault of intelligence, a fault of skills. No, poverty is not a failing of the residents of Hunts Point who are just as decent and talented as anyone else. Rather it is a failing of our broader society.

In another article, he compares a New York City prostitute named Takeesha and a Wall Street trader named “Mr. One-Glove.”

Takeesha was raped by a family member at 11, and pimped by another family member at the age of 13. She ran away and is now supporting herself and her drug habit by charging men $50.00 a pop for having sex with her. At the time of the article, she was serving in time for prison for possession.

Meanwhile, Mr One Glove, who, while he is not guilty of anything illegal, his practices are often unethical. Yet, because of the world he lives in, with the right lawyer, he won’t go to jail. If anything, he’ll profit all the more. Arnade goes on to say that we have built two separate societies: One is characterized by privilege and opportunity, the other is impoverished and doomed to a lifetime of limited options.

And because most of these poverty-stricken neighborhoods are predominantly black, the conclusion is that Racism is the cause of poverty and the “have’s” and the “have-not’s” are divided according to ethnicity and nothing more.

But while Arnade articulates an eloquent summary of what many feel to be a brand of racism that mirrors the sixties – but in a more sinister and subtle way – there are others in the black community who feel very differently.

IV) If All Whites Were to Move to Canada and Europe

Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. He says, “I tell people, what is your solution? If all whites tomorrow were to move to Canada and Europe, tell me how it would affect the black on black crime rate, how would it it affect the out-of-wedlock births, how would it affect the spread of AIDS? How would it affect those issues?”

“What I’m saying to Black America, we must stop victimization. We must stop complaining about what white folks have done to us in the past. We must go into ourselves, as Dr. King said, and find indelible ink — our own emancipation proclamation.”

CNN’s Don Lemon offered some commentary that inspired all kinds of negative reaction on social media when he claimed that the black community needed to clean up their act and that much of what they claimed to be a result of racial prejudice was, in fact, a collection of financial and social burdens of their own making.

Morgan Freeman added to Lemon’s perspective in an interview with Mike Wallace. At one point he says that he doesn’t want a “Black History Month” – that Black History is American History. When Wallace responds by asking, “How are we going to get rid of Racism?”, Freeman answers by saying, “Quit talking about it.” He goes on to say that he’s going to stop calling Wallace a “white man” and he expects Wallace to quit calling him a “black man.”

The idea being that we stop emphasizing the differences in order to better appreciate the commonalities.

V) What Happens at a Traffic Light

But what are the commonalities? From a positive point of view, we’re all human beings and bear the Fingerprint of our Creator. With that comes dignity, value and a capacity to do extraordinary things.

“…it’s your responsibility”

We’re responsible for our actions in:

We’re all also responsible for our actions. Think about this: When a motorist approaches a traffic light, they’re obligated to stop if it’s red. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a man or woman driving the car, nor is their ethnic background relevant. In that moment, the only thing that matters is the fact that they’re responsible for stopping their car.

Should they choose to not stop, the laws of physics do not delineate according to gender, income or race. Don Lemmon’s commentary focused on five issues, one of them being the number of unwed mothers in the black community.

Should you conceive a child as an unwed mother, you are:

  • more likely to grow up in a single-parent household
  • experience unstable living arrangements
  • live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems

As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to:

  • have low educational attainment
  • engage in sex at a younger age
  • have a birth outside of marriage themselves

As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to:

  • be idle (neither in school nor employed)
  • have lower occupational status and income
  • have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents

The above statistics are not true for just one particular people group. Rather, they’re true for everyone. Just like the aforementioned traffic light, should you choose to disregard the boundaries that constitute moral behavior, the repercussions that ensue are not partial to any one ethnicity.

Regardless if you’re black or white, the unwed mother is obligated to travel a road fraught with financial difficulties and professional hardships. And what’s tragic is that she also places her child on a fatherless path that provides fertile soil for all kinds of rebellious behavior.

In 2013, 72% of all black babies were born to unwed mothers. In speaking with a source who has over 25 years experience in law enforcement, he reinforced the above numbers by adding the fact that the child born to an unwed mother is typically raised by the grandmother until they’re old enough to attend school. By that point, they’re coming home to a situation that’s unsupervised and, in the absence of a strong father figure, they’re enticed by the sinister characters in their neighborhood that have the money and the car – all of which were obtained in the context of vice.

These are the individuals that are revered as role models. Meanwhile, their hormones inspire them to seek out intimate encounters with the opposite sex and, in the absence of an individual who’s either willing, or at least capable, of teaching them the advantages of moral behavior, the cycle perpetuates itself.

Recognize that the decisions being made in the context of the above scenarios are not a result of a “system,” nor is it a situation where one is being forced to engage in a collection of activities that are neither wise nor moral. Rather, it’s a matter of the will.

In 2013, 72% of the African American couples who engaged in an illicit sexual encounter chose to do so knowing full well they were running a red light.

VI) You Need Money to Pay the Bills

Imagine the situation confronting a young, unwed mother with a newborn. Whatever aspirations they may have had for furthering their education are now superseded by the need to get a job in order to support her child. Her marketable skills are typical of her age group which translates to a minimum wage paying position. Even the most basic of living conditions often require more than what can be paid for with that kind of an hourly salary. It’s about then that the choice to run that red light nine months ago begins to resonate as the life altering choice that it truly was.

Consider the world as it looks to one of the 41% of black students that dropped out of High School according to a 2012-2013 report.

Without a High School diploma, their options are extremely limited. Speeding through that particular red light might’ve looked liberating at first, but now confronted with having to purchase your own toilet paper, the reality of your financial future is revealed as limited at best.

It’s these kinds of dilemmas that drive people to apply for government assistance. But it’s not because of their skin color that they’re having to contend with a minuscule bank account, again, it’s because of the choices they’ve made.

And bear in mind, these individuals are not necessarily lazy or corrupt. One third of those who are being assisted by the government are employed as can be see by the diagram to the right. But when you look at the jobs that are listed, you can understand why there’s still a shortfall in that they’re employed in the context of a minimum wage paying positions – few of which were ever intended to be full time careers.

Some want to argue that those who employ minimum wage workers should increase their wages.

Perhaps.

But if it can be determined that the skillset being brought to the table by these employees is an extension of the consequences precipitated by the red lights they chose to disregard, then it’s no longer an injustice on the part of the system that needs to be addressed, as much as it’s the lack of morals and wisdom on the part of the individuals who are now insisting it’s the government’s job to alter the marketplace.

VII) Poverty = Crime

Charging a person with having a deficiency in their moral character is a bold accusation. It’s easier and far less confrontational to assert that poverty represents a natural segue into a life of crime. Hence the need for more education, government programs and a greater awareness of how Racism and Capitalism represent the principal forces that cause our nation’s prison population to swell.

In some ways, it’s easy to imagine how a person’s moral resolve may falter in the face of starvation and destitution. But when you pop the hood on the true financial status of those who are receiving government aid, while their situation might appear meager, it’s not necessarily what you would imagine.

In a National Review article, Dennis Prager writes:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey for 2005…among all poor households: Over 99 percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer. As for homelessness, one-half of 1 percent living under the poverty line have lost their homes and live in shelters. Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones. When the Left talks about the poor, they don’t mention these statistics, because what matters to the Left is inequality, not poverty.

The fact that you have a microwave and a personal computer doesn’t mean that you’re comfortable or content. But it does diminish, if not completely eradicate the idea, that the crime being committed in the projects is driven by an empty stomach or the need for shelter.

VIII) Why Do This?

If it’s not the basic necessities of life that inspire a young person to adopt the mindset of a criminal, then what?

According to a source that serves on the local police force, should you take the time to listen to a police scanner, the majority of calls that come in are black on black and black on white episodes.

Why?

Black people constitute 14.3% of the total population based on 2014 statistics. Yet, despite they’re being the minority in terms of the American citizenry, they represent the largest percentage of those who are incarcerated (37% black inmates, 32% white and 22% Hispanic).

According to a local black police officer, who also served with distinction in the Armed Forces, the problem is not financial. Again, it’s symptomatic of a fatherless community. Regardless of how some want to dismiss that as a contributing factor, let alone a principal cause, consider the fact that 70% of long term prison inmates grew up in broken homes.

However you want to uncoil the rope that represents the mindset of the troubled minority, in the vast majority of cases it’s the emotional and psychological void left by an absentee father that drives their rebellious appetites.

IX) What About Takeesha?

Remember Takeesha? She was the woman earlier referred to in the article by Chris Arnade. According to Arnade, she represents the flawed foundation upon which our system is based. It’s a result of bigotry and a system of capitalism overseen by prejudiced Caucasians that restrict her existence to a life of prostitution, incarceration and drug abuse.

But what about the family member who sexually assaulted her when she was 11?

What about the other family member that forced her into a life of prostitution?

Why is it that the most obvious and powerful emotional influences aren’t being held accountable?

Capitol Hill is not going to raise or rescue Takessha.

It can’t.

It’s not a program or a fund that protects and nurtures minors, let alone prodigal adults. It’s the parents’ role to raise their children in a way where they can take responsibility for themselves and go on to not just survive, but to thrive. Should that paradigm not be in place, what then?

Can the government help?

Maybe.

But if that assistance translates to merely subsidizing the mindset that maintains a status of immunity when it comes to taking responsibility for your actions, then you’re no longer talking about “assistance,” you’re simply financing a perspective that insists others should do for them what they need to do for themselves. That’s not an absence of compassion. That’s compassion extended in the company of wisdom.

Norway is often held up as an example by those who want to fault our nation for being less than attentive to the plight of those who are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. But unlike the US where you can conceivably stay on some sort of government assistance indefinitely, Norway gives you boundaries. To receive unemployment benefits, you have to register as an unemployed citizen and you are expected to be actively looking for work. Depending on your previous position, the length of time you can receive unemployment is a year. After that, you’re on your own. There may be some extenuating circumstances that will allow for a longer period of time, but the premise upon which you’re able to receive aid is that your scenario is a temporary one and you’re going to get back in the job market.

X) Does Racism Exist?

Does Racism exist?

Yes.

There are moral cowards out there that use ethnic slurs and jump at every opportunity to elevate themselves over another based on nothing other than their ethnicity.

Does Racism exist to the point where you can say that it constitutes a legitimate barrier between you as a minority and what you’re capable of?

Absolutely not.

  • We have a black President, who won both the electoral and popular vote in 2008 and 2012.
  • We have a black Attorney General (Loretta E. Lynch).
  • 74% of the basketball players in the NBA are black.
  • In 2014, the NFL consisted of 64% black athletes.
  • In 2015, the pop music charts were dominated by artists of color.
  • In January of 2015, the 114th Congress was reported as the most diverse congress in history with 20% being non-white.
  • Dr. Ben Carson is a celebrated neurosurgeon and he’s black.
  • You have African Americans in the police force (25%), there are black professors (5%) and black CEO’s (1%).

You have black professionals scattered throughout the marketplace.

Why are there not more?

Could it have anything to do with the 41% that drop out of High School? How about the percentage of unwed mothers who are compelled to forgo higher education in order to raise their baby? Does that not limit the number of minorities who would otherwise be in a position to work in a professional role?

According to NAACP.org, based on 2001 statistics, it’s conceivable that today, one of every three black males will be incarcerated. Does that not make a difference, as far as diversity in the workplace?

Of course it does.

But wait.

XI) Is the Judicial System Flawed?

The same source that elaborates on the current trends of the arrest rate for black males also insists that blacks are unfairly treated in the courtroom – that their sentences are often far more severe then their white counterparts. Again, the implication is that the social and economic shortcomings that exist in the black community are a result of a prejudiced infrastructure that is determined to persecute minorities.

But in speaking with a local judge, he made it clear that things in the courtroom are now always as they appear on the surface. “Possession” is viewed differently depending on the drug – recreational drugs versus narcotics. The same thing can be said for dealing. Repeat offenders and those who are frequently appearing before the bench can receive sentences that appear overly harsh without being privy to the defendant’s history.

Is it possible that the judge in question is being especially severe?

Possibly.

But generally speaking, you’ll find that same judge to be hard on everyone and not just minorities. Of course the fact that you’re having to appear in court at all raises some questions. You wouldn’t be concerned about the disposition of the bench if hadn’t been arrested to begin with. Perhaps your concerns would be laid to rest if you resolved to stay out of trouble.

While that sounds like an obvious solution, the response from those who insist that the black race is often targeted by abusive and racist police is that blacks are frequently arrested for no real reason and when they are arrested, it’s not uncommon for the police to assault them physically.

But here again, in order to assure a truly accurate analysis of the situation, you need to hear from those who are tasked with responding to the calls coming from the dispatcher on the police radio. In speaking with a law enforcement professional with over two decades of service to his credit, he pointed out that those in the squad car are responding to the description given by the victim and not a description they would concoct on their own.

When the assailant is described as a black male, approximately 200 pounds and 5’9″, that’s who they’re going to be looking for. It’s not bigotry that determines who’s being questioned, it’s the physical characteristics of the accused that defines the nature of the search.

Imagine a squad car pulling into an area close to the scene of the crime. A man is seen that fits the description given by the victim. The officers approach the man with the mindset that this could be the individual they’re looking for, if for no other reason than his appearance matches the description of the suspect.

Should that individual be belligerent in the way he responds to the officers’ questions, he’s not taking a stand against Racism, rather he’s making the job of the police officers that much more difficult. The police aren’t there to prosecute a racist agenda, they’re attempting to solve a crime. Should your actions or your attitude qualify you as someone who merits further questioning, prepare to be treated as a suspect.

That’s not Racism, that’s common sense.

Are the police guilty of missteps?

Certainly.

But is that the prevailing tone of the entire system?

Before you answer that, make a point of asking a black police officer for their input. You’re going to find a perspective that doesn’t reinforce the venom spewed by the activists bent on charging law enforcement with abusive tactics.

Not even close.

XII) Riots in the Streets

Michael Brown, Jr. was a 6’4″, 292 pound, 18 year old that was stopped by Police Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014 after Brown had robbed a nearby convenience store in Ferguson, MO. An altercation ensued where Brown reached into the police car, assaulted Officer Wilson and attempted to wrestle control of Wilson’s firearm away from him. The gun went off resulting in Brown being wounded in the hand, at which point he ran from the scene.

Wilson chased after Brown, who at this point is guilty of robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Brown stopped running and started towards Officer Wilson. Wilson, who at this point, having no reason to suspect that Brown has had a change of heart, as far as his resolve to assault an officer of the law, proceeds to shoot Brown. Brown continues moving towards Wilson and when he seemingly reaches for something that could very well be a weapon, Officer Wilson fires the shot that would end Brown’s life.

The uproar that ensued was significant. Here again was yet another instance where a white police officer supposedly killed a black suspect for no real reason.

Police Brutality.

White Supremacy.

The Ugly Specter of Racism.

It would take three weeks for the verdict that would determine whether or not Officer Wilson acted appropriately would be determined. Meanwhile, those who were determined to exploit any question as to whether or not Officer Wilson acted outside the line of duty seized every opportunity to make the death of Michael Brown a purely racial issue.

In speaking with an officer who was a part of the investigation, he was able to shed some light on the verdict that supposedly took three weeks to arrive at. In truth, it took three hours and twenty minutes. Witnesses that had come forward with testimony that called into question Officer Wilson’s conduct were revealed as unreliable and inconsistent (see page 44 of official Department of Justice report).

Forensics corroborated Wilson’s testimony and after a detailed and full investigation, Wilson was completely exonerated. It took three weeks to release the verdict, however, because until the additional riot control gear that had been ordered was available for the Ferguson Police Force, the decision makers felt it prudent to wait until they were sufficiently equipped to stand up to the mob that was poised to riot should the verdict not be to their satisfaction.

What’s interesting is that the “mob” that was lingering in the streets weren’t even residents of Ferguson. Rather, they had been bused in by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for the sole purpose of creating a spectacle. And it was a spectacle thanks to other public personalities such as Attorney General Eric Holder who joined the chorus by characterizing the events in Ferguson that, according to Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, maliciously threw law enforcement officers under the bus in the name of political expediency.

Is this Racism?

According to Sheriff David Clarke, absolutely not! Rather, it’s a campaign to maintain the illusion that racism exists on a grandiose scale to the point where it can solicit votes, money and power. flag

XIII) Answer These Questions

There’s a video out that shows a young, black man walking on the American flag as part of a demonstration, insisting that the flag is the “new swastika.” He goes on, in the context of a string of foul superlatives, to denounce America as a racist enterprise.

His tirade is ludicrous on several levels.

First of all, if you’ve ever had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz, you would know for certain that to compare the US with Nazi Germany is as outrageous as it is nonsensical. But as you watch this young man taking selfies as he belligerently steps on the Stars and Stripes, you can’t help but notice that he’s not alone. There are others that condone and endorse his rhetoric and his actions as expressions of a persecuted  ethnic group that is justified in condemning the United States, even to the point of walking on the same symbol that was raised over the rubble of 9/11 and hoisted at the peak of Mt Suribachi at the expense of the lives of several Marines.

Yet another video shows a young, black thug knocking out a white, homeless woman. It was filmed by one of his associates and posted on youtube as though the entire episode was entertaining and even justified due to the way racism is often circulated as the social cancer that drives destitute young minorities to acts of violence. After all, racism causes poverty and poverty causes crime.

Well… thug

Let’s start with the guy walking on the flag. Answer the following questions:

  • What was your Grade Point Average in High School?
  • Did you have to ask off from work in order to be able to be demonstrate today?
  • When was the last time you did any kind of volunteer work?
  • How did you score on your SAT / ACT?
  • What sort of scholarship programs do you qualify for?
  • What are your professional goals?
  • Have you ever served in the military?

What are you doing in terms of a diligent work ethic, a professional disposition and a selfless determination to realize your dreams?

God put you on this planet to make a difference and not just an appearance. What have you done with what He’s given you (Ex 35:30; Eph 2:10)? Who are you working to become and how are you leveraging the opportunities that are yours by default?

If your platform has any credibility, then these question will be easily responded to with transcripts, referrals and recommendations that validate the individual cussing and walking across the flag as a responsible person who has indeed been shortchanged.

But, on the other hand…

If the majority of your time has been spent turning in lackluster performances as a student and as an employee. If it’s evident that your focus is more on what you can get by complaining than what you can earn by achieving – then it’s not the system that need to be corrected, rather, it’s your perspective on yourself and the world around you that needs to be adjusted.

As Ivy White, a black wife, mother of four and a recent graduate of the Georgia State University Law School said as part of her address at her own graduation ceremony, “The dream is free, but the hustle is sold separately.”

Bottom line: If your desecration of the American flag and your denouncement of the nation it represents as a racist country is to have any credibility, then you have to be prepared to match Ivy’s resolve, the work ethic of Ben Carson and the character of David Clarke with comparable virtues of your own. Otherwise, you’re simply hoping that a volatile sounding complaint will mask the lack of accomplishments and character traits that should be present on the resume as an adult who’s truly interested in succeeding.

XIV) Doing the Math

An article in US News and World Report said that…

Business owners also say that some job applicants want to get paid under the table, so they can continue to collect jobless benefits.”

A recent story by CNN Money highlighted a manufacturing firm in Wisconsin that has started to lock out job applicants it suspects of showing up just so they can say they looked for work—a requirement for anybody receiving jobless benefits.

Another business owner, in Illinois, said in the same story that her company needs to hire 45 to 50 new salespeople, but struggles with workers who quit after getting free training, or who try to get fired after a few months of work so they can re-qualify for unemployment insurance. The company has now hired a specialist to help weed out phonies and identify worthwhile applicants.

If 41% of your demographic are dropping out of High School, if 72% are getting pregnant out of wedlock and if it’s evident that some who are unemployed are manipulating the system in order to continue receiving benefits without having to work, how can it be concluded that the sole reason why minorities are, in many cases, poor is because of Racism?

As has been mentioned before, according to the NAACP, 1 in 3 black males will see prison time before the end of their life. Couple that statistic with the fact that 70% of all criminals come from broken homes and the perspective of the police officers cited in this article and you have a compelling reason for why the incarceration rate is what it is  – and it’s not so much about bigotry as much as it is the conspicuous absence of engaged fathers.

When you consider the phrase, “war on minorities,” it’s often coupled with the “war on drugs.” Many insist that the arrest rate is disproportionate despite the usage being the same between whites and blacks. But when you take a closer look at the statistics that pertain to drug usage, the numbers can be misleading if they’re not processed correctly.

According to a 2012 research project done by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the percentage of whites using drugs compared to the percentage of blacks using drugs look roughly the same (9.2 for whites, 11.3 for blacks). But upon closer inspection, you realize that when you calculate the real difference, the gap between the two figures is far more dramatic. To calculate the difference, you don’t merely subtract 9.2 from 11.3. You begin by figuring out what percentage of 9.2 is 2.1 (the difference between the two figures). So, 2.1 divided by 9.2 times 100 equals 22.8 or 23%.

Another way to look at is if I’ve got an item that’s usually sold for $5.00 and it’s on sale for $4.00, that’s a 25% difference.

Do you see where all of this is going?

An article by attorney Roger Clegg brings this to light in his article published in the National Review. He elaborates on the statistical realities and concludes by saying that, “…the case has not been convincingly made that the war has been motivated and implanted with an eye on race.” His comment serves as an appropriate commentary on the way poverty and crime are often identified as the byproducts of Racism and a system that persecutes minorities. The topic of Racism, as far as the way that it’s championed by the liberal press and some of the more vocal activists, insists that the choice to quit High School, to be a teenage, unwed mother and to break the law are not choices as much as they are obligatory reactions to an infrastructure that’s determined to suppress any and every opportunity to succeed.

But when you look at the statistics – when you consider the impartial and limiting realities of the financial and social mathematics brought on by the choices made by the same individuals that insist it’s Racism and not their own decision making that’s responsible for their situation – the response from any rational human being with an eye to see and an ear to listen is…

…absolutely not.

Another voice that’s worth including in the conversation is that of Larry Elder, an attorney, a prolific writer and host of his own radio show on 790 KABC in Los Angeles.

He was recently interviewed on the Dave Rubin Show and expounds on several statistics that reinforce that “math” that you see above. Take a look:

Social Injustice – The Breakdown of the Family

  • Democrat Party gets 95% of Black Vote because many blacks are convinced that the number one issue facing America today is social injustice
  • Number one issue facing America today is the breakdown of the family. (Barack Obama)
  • A kid without a dad is 5 times more likely to be poor and commit crimes, 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in jail
  • 75% of black males are raised without fathers
  • In 1890, according to census reports, a black child was more likely to be born into an intact family than they would be today. Even during slavery, the chance of a child being born into a home where the biological father and mother were married is greater than it is in the 21st century.
  • In the sixties, Welfare was extended to women who could demonstrate that there was no man in the house. In 1965, 25% of babies born to the black community were born to unwed mothers. Today, that same statistic is 75%. And that damage is not limited to the black community. In 1965, 5% of babies born to the white community were born to a single parent household. Today, it’s 25%. Bottom line: Because of welfare and the government subsidies extended towards females as part of the “war on poverty,” we’ve provided an avenue in which men can abandon their responsibilities and sense of moral duty while simultaneously encouraged women to “marry” the government.
  • Both the Brookings Institution (Liberal Think Tank) and the Heritage Foundation (Conservative Think Tank) both agree that there’s an obvious correlation between the breakdown of the family and every other problem that is traditionally associated with racism (crime, prison sentences, bad schools, increase in Welfare spending)

larryPolice Brutality

  • In 2015, 965 people were shot and killed by policemen. 4% were while cops shooting unarmed blacks
  • In Chicago in 2011, 21 people were shot and killed by cops. In 2015, there were 7
  • In Chicago which is divided up evenly as 33% black, 33% white and 33% Hispanic, 70% of the homicides were black on black. 40 per month, 500 last year and 75% of them are unsolved.
  • Half the homicides in this country are commited by black people (bear in mind, they occupy 13% of the total population). There was a total of 14,000 murders last year. Half of them were committed by black people, 96% of them were black on black.
  • University of Washington did a recent study and discovered that police are more reluctant to pull the trigger when confronted with a black person than a white person. That means that under certain circumstances, a white person is more likely to be shot than a white person.
  • The last 30-40 years, the percentage of blacks who have been killed by cops has decreased by 75%, while the percentage of whites has flat lined.
  • Most of the fatalities in recent months / years (Erik Garner [New York City], Tamir Rice [Cleveland, OH], Michael Brown [Ferguson, MO]) involved the suspect resisting arrest

Violence in Baltimore (Freddy Gray case)

  • City of Baltimore is 45% black
  • City Council – 100% Democrat, the majority is black. The mayor is black, the Attorney General is black, the #1 and #2 Policemen in charge are both black

Education

  • Because of Affirmative Action, a black student with a comparable GPA and SAT score is more likely to get into a college than a white person. If you’re going to argue that college provides the most direct route to the middle class, black have a better chance to succeed than whites.
  • The poorer you are, the more accessible grants and students loans are.

Miscellaneous

  • the #1 cause of death among young white men is car accidents. The #1 cause of death among young black men is homicides – committed by other black men.
  • Rush Limbaugh is never accused of being racist for criticizing Hillary Clinton, but if a black conservative criticizes a black liberal, he is referred to as a racist if not worse
  • blacks typically differ from liberal Democrat schools of thought when it comes to privatizing Social Security, education vouchers, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. The only thing that ties them to the Democrat party is the notion of racism and social injustice.
  • The Democrat party has not won the white vote since 1964. The more successful liberals are in convincing black people that they are victims and Democrat candidates are going to “fix it,” the better chance Democrats have of getting elected.

XV) All of These Men Were White

Louis Farrakhan believes that all white people should die.

Jane Elliot says, “If you graduated from High School and you weren’t a racist, you weren’t listening and you should’ve gotten a “F” in Social Studies…We are conditioned to the myth of white supremacy from the moment of our birth, in fact, even before birth.”

Emory Professor of Philosophy, George Yancy, published an editorial in the New York Times on Christmas Eve 2015 where he asked all of white America to “open yourself up; to speak to, to admit to, the racist poison that is inside of you.”

Regardless of how some might want to argue that the Civil War was fought over economic tensions or states’ rights, given the way in which certain states seceded once Abraham Lincoln was elected, it’s obvious that it was the slavery issue that fueled most of what caused the South and the North to clash.

America on Racism…

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 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…(The Declaration of Independence)

Abraham Lincoln Fundamental to Lincoln’s argument was his conviction that slavery must be dealt with as a moral wrong. It violated the statement in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and it ran counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The “real issue” in his contest with Douglas, Lincoln insisted, was the issue of right and wrong, and he charged that his opponent was trying to uphold a wrong. (history.org)

Theodore Roosevelt …the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less than he shows himself worthy to have. (wikiquote.com) Branch Rickey Some day I’m going to have to stand before God, and if He asks me why I didn’t let that [Jackie] Robinson fellow play ball, I don’t think saying ‘because of the color of his skin’ would be a good enough answer. (azquotes.com)
John F. Kennedy In a campaign very much like this one, one hundred years ago, when the issues were the same [Abraham Lincoln] wrote to a friend, ‘I know there is a God, and I know He hates injustice. I see the storm coming and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready.’ Now, one hundred years later, when the issue is still freedom or slavery, we know there is a God and we know He hates injustice. We see the storm coming, and we know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that we are ready. (Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, Memorial Auditorium, NY | September 28, 1960)

It boiled down to how a human being was to be defined; whether by the color of their skin or by the fact that God had created all men equal. This was the same premise upon which the Declaration of Independence was crafted, it was the winning platform that Abraham Lincoln so eloquently articulated that ultimately earned him the Oval Office, it was what compelled Theodore Roosevelt to invite Booker T. Washington to the White House, it’s what inspired Branch Rickey to draft Jackie Robinson and it was the philosophical foundation that moved Kennedy to propose the Civil Rights Bill that would be signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

All of these men were white.

And as a quick aside, while we’re talking about the Civil War, let’s not forget that there was a Union Army and not just a Confederacy. It’s not uncommon for activists to point to the Civil War and highlight the way in which the South so aggressively championed the institution of slavery, resulting in one more log on the fire of white supremacy and the KKK etc.

But the Union casualty list is right around 360,000. That’s over a quarter of a million people, most of which were Caucasian, that gave their lives in order to ensure that there could be a Rainbow Coalition, an NAACP and an Ebony Magazine.

Every one of these men recognized the same thing that all Americans must realize when it comes to the way we interact with one another.

Racism is wrong.

We are not rated any differently in the eyes of God.

We’re all in desperate need of grace and we all bear the Fingerprint of our Redeemer in terms of having been created to make a difference. That is our mandate, that is our birthright and that is our responsibility.

But to assert Racism not as an issue, but as a strategy in order to prevent certain questions from being asked in terms of High School dropout rate, teenage pregnancy, criminal behavior – these are manifestations of a fatherless constituency along with a collective refusal to take personal responsibility for the choices that are being made.

This is not the sigh of the segregated. Rather, it is the indignation of the irresponsible.

XVI) In Conclusion

Activists need to stop cloaking their agenda using carefully Christian-esque sounding verbiage. To insinuate that something is flawed in your relationship with Christ unless you’re willing to support the platform of those who at least tacitly approve of any kind of violence done in the name of racism is a gross mishandling of God’s Word. In the absence of a specific chapter and verse, you’re doing nothing other than covering a crop of weeds with some godly sounding mulch. Not only does it not work, but you risk categorizing yourself as someone who’s using the Bible to advance your own agenda rather than God’s and that’s never wise (Acts 9:13-16; 2 Cor 2:17).

Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, Vivian Malone Jones – these people are heroes in that they stood up to injustice by honoring the law and demonstrating character that was beyond reproach. There’s was a struggle that was nothing short of substantial given the prejudice and the violence that was directed towards them for no reason other than their ethnicity. They responded with a resolved grace and in so doing revealed their platform as both substantial and credible.

Is that the tenor of today?

Are opportunities fewer?

Are the voices we’re hearing the articulate and biblically based appeals for equality that resonated in the sixties, or are we hearing shots fired and demands being made by people who, in many cases, are revealed as being victims of their own decision-making more so than a prejudiced system?

There is such a thing as “righteous indignation,” but there’s nothing “righteous” about your indignation when your platform is revealed as an intentional effort to disregard those areas where personal responsibility is cast aside.

The greater the indignation, the more intense the violence, the louder the rhetoric – it becomes clear: This is a problem that emanates from a deficiency in role models which translates to a lack of character, ambition, respect and success.

Is it tragic?

Yes.

Is it racism?

Absolutely not!

Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

I) Trump / Pence 2016

I’ve never been as intrigued with an election, nor so resolved to be better educated when it comes to current events than I am this election cycle (2016).

During the last six weeks, I resolved to reach beyond debates and headlines and read some books in order to get up to speed in the context of a more comprehensive perspective. I’ve read the following:

“Great Again” – in order to hear what Trump was bringing to the table in the absence of screaming protestors and antagonistic critics.

“In Trump We Trust” in order to get the perspective of someone who I knew to be like-minded when it comes to current events and to see how well Trump’s proposals address those concerns.

“Stealing America” and “Hillary’s America” to hear the platform of someone who Obama had imprisoned in part because of the film he made entitled “Obama 2016” where he reveals Obama to be an “anti-colonialist” based on his family background and his obvious regard for the legal extortion techniques pioneered by Saul Alinski. Anyone who has paid that kind of price for his convictions is worth a hearing and both books are very thought provoking.

The next president could possibly nominate up to 4 Supreme Court Justices. This is a position that is held for life. There are nine positions. Four of those are currently held by people who’ve been in those spots between 20 and 30 years. Some of them are approaching 80 years old. The president that is elected this coming November will establish as many as four justices that will be in power up to the time of your grandchildren. You need to vote this November…!

The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump.

Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether.

The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.

The Democrat party represents a legacy of theft dressed up in compassion and equality. Hillary is an enhanced version of that paradigm that can trace it’s lineage back to Andrew Jackson. In addition, the substance of America has been substantially minimized with the administration of Barack Obama. Our national debt, our standing in the eyes of other other nations in terms of our foreign policy, the way in which he encourages racial division – these are all manifestations of a mindset that seeks to subtlety, yet strategically, decrease the influence and capacity of America as a nation. And when anyone who represents a conservative mindset begins to disagree or assert a different approach, the tenor of the culture led by Obama discredits them as enemies of progress.

Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice.

This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.

Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason. As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised.

You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).

While it’s not necessarily unethical, it borders on sinister to see the way in which some of what Trump has said be quoted out of context and twisted into something outrageous by his opponents. It makes sense, however, when you take an inventory of the personalities conducting the violent protests and publishing the damaging smears and calculate what they stand to lose; either in the context of political clout or ill gotten gain should he be elected president.

II) But What About Trump?

But what about Trump?

Bigot?

Typhoon?

Hates Women, Warmonger?

Hates Veterans?

These days, people hear with their eyes and think with their feelings. Headlines can be misleading and articles can be selective about what is said and what is not said thus leading the reader to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate (click here for an exposition on the difference between Facts, Information and Truth). That’s not to say that Trump makes it difficult for reporters to cast him as a problem child. He rarely holds back in what he thinks, which isn’t always healthy or appropriate. But rarely does he not have a point.

And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.

III) Combat Veterans

When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished.

They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.

Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style.

He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying.

If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.

It’s been disappointing to see some prominent personalities come out and mirror the media in their assessment and statements pertaining to Trump. It’s as though there’s a script being circulated and whoever it is that’s willing to parrot the talking points that are documented, they’re broadcasted as much and as loudly as they can – as though they’re trying to drown out the practical and substantial dynamics this man brings to the table.

This brings up a good point.

IV) I Voted for Cruz

I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. I voted for Cruz because I tend to gravitate to those who are the most vocal in terms of their faith. If I had to do it again, however, I don’t think I would’ve voted for Cruz and here’s why:

yanceyIn the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day.

And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.

Philip Yancey, who’s a great writer, was featured on a video clip recently where he stated that he’s shocked and surprised that any evangelical could support Trump. He cites Trump’s failed marriages, his affairs, and the fact that he’s made a substantial amount of money with his casinos as reasons why you shouldn’t support him.

First of all, it’s not just casinos. His fortune is based on a number of income streams, his most obvious and substantial being commercial real estate. I was somewhat familiar with the Trump name and brand, but it wasn’t until after I read “Great Again” that I became familiar with the number of buildings and properties he’s developed around the globe.

He’s a very talented business man.

What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise.

The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers.

Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.

Think…

V) For the Record

When a liberal is confronted with a platform that is difficult to dispute, the crosshairs of their criticism is aimed at the person proclaiming that platform. In that way, attention is diverted from the issue being addressed and instead the topic is now whatever accusation they’ve just made. In the case of Donald Trump, his adversaries are both his political opponents and the arm of the Democrat party – the liberal media.

“You didn’t build that…” even when proponents of President Obama attempt to better justify his comments by quoting them in context, when you process his statement as part of the Progressive dynamic as a whole, the message is still the same: If you’re not rich, you are persecuted and the victim of a flawed system. If you are rich, you are guilty of extortion and an unethical exploitation of people not as fortunate as yourself. The Solution: Give government the necessary amount of control it needs to force a level playing ground, regardless of an individual’s work ethic, their ability to risk and their creative talent. The Result: Facism. Those who work are compelled to surrender the fruits of their labor, their convictions, and whatever right they have to themselves to a constituency that makes demands more than they make contributions. All the while, those in government profit from the control they now have and justify their financial position by insisting that they are promoting the best interests of society.

He’s Rich

The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default.

President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together.

This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.

Born Into Privilege

Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.1

When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved.

Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.2 Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur.

That wasn’t the case in his early years, though. He personified what some would expect as far as being a “spoiled brat,” and a troublemaker. To cure that, his parents shipped him of to military school. Initially, he didn’t do well at all. But by the time he graduated, however, he was captain of his cadet class – a position that you had to be voted into by your peers.3

John McCain and the Military Vote

While Trump never served in the military, his respect and appreciate for the military is beyond question. Not simply because of his military academy experience, but also because of the way in which he has supported the military in situations such as the Veteran’s Day Parade in New York City in 1987 and in 1995 when donations were embarrassingly low and Trump stepped in with his own resources and gave the parade and the veterans it honored the dignity it deserved.

That by itself may not mean much to someone who’s focused on Trump’s comments about John McCain or his most recent comments about combat veterans suffering from PTSD as “not being able to handle it.” Fact is, even after Trump insulted McCain’s military service, polls showed that the military preferred Trump to McCain.4 And when you look at the comment made by Trump pertaining to PTSD in context, you see a much different picture than what Trump’s opponents attempt to present.

Take a look at the comment Trump made pertaining to McCain in the context of his conversation with Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa:

Luntz: Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a “dummy.” Is that appropriate in running for president?
Trump: You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt all the time, okay? [laughter] No, I know him too well, that’s the problem. Let’s take John McCain. I’m in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel: It’s turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before – they’re pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, We can’t handle this, it’s gonna destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than – fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than anybody. And everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans, I will tell you. John McCain goes, Oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had fifteen thousand crazies show up.
“Crazies” – he called them all crazy. I said, They weren’t crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you would’ve seen these people – I know what crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren’t crazy. So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said, Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him – I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. That’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Laughter] But, Frank, let me get to it.
Luntz: He is a war hero, he’s a war hero.
Trump: He hit me. He’s not a war hero.
Luntz: Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp.
Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? I hate to tell you. He was a war hero because he was captured, okay And I believe – perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is: John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren’t crazy. And, very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said – nobody knows that – I said, He graduated last, or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.5

While Trump was out of line to minimize McCain’s courage and selflessness as a POW, he wasn’t wrong in state that McCain was out of line himself. One week later, polls showed that veterans and those currently serving in the military preferred Trump to McCain 53% to 41%. That’s because what the press wants to insinuate is distinct from what veterans heard and processed. Reason being is that what was actually said was different than what the press wants to promote.

The same thing applies to Trump’s comments about veterans suffering from PTSD. When you look at what was actually said versus what was quoted, you’re confronted with a much different scenario.

Bankruptcy

Trump’s business acumen is undeniable. By that I mean, it’s obvious from his accomplishments that he’s capable of some extraordinary things in terms of leading and envisioning a highly successful business venture. But those who want to distract from the multitude of highly successful income streams zealously highlight those instances when he’s declared bankruptcy.

Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt.

Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded.

But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair.

The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.

Miscellaneous

Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe in 1996. Two years later, she was an accessory to murder and further smeared her reputation by threatening to kill the judge that presided over her case. This coupled with her having gained 50 pounds earned Trump the dubious title of a woman-hater when he referred to Machado as “Miss Piggy.” Certainly not one of his finest moments, but not altogether inappropriate given Machado’s obvious lack of character.

The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public.

Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns?

I didn’t.

Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t process numbers that large doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.

Finally, the recently released recording of Trump saying some positively lewd things pertaining to women – if you’re not familiar with it, click here, but be forewarned, it’s explicit and vulgar.

First off,  it’s significant that, at the time, it was 11 years old. Someone had to invest a fair amount of time to find this and the timing of it being made public – I doubt is coincidental. It’s even more suspicious when you consider some of the testimonies coming from several parties that state the tape was purposefully leaked by GOP elites who are uncomfortable with Trump. Should that prove to be credible, Paul Ryan, and those who think like him, may find himself in a very awkward position.

What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with…

  • Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office
  • Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them
  • JFK’s multiple affairs
  • Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters
  • Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him
  • Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick
  • Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape.

What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.

Here’s the bottom line:

Moses was a killer, David was an adulterer and Abraham was a liar.  Paul was a Pharisee and Peter was a coward. Moral failings are not unique and fairly common, especially among those who fly solo in the face of temptation rather than align themselves with the Power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Even those who are fully equipped to overcome whatever potential compromise stands in their way are not always consistent in their resolve to give the keys to their Heavenly Father and they wind up as moral disasters.

Where does Trump fall in all of this?

Is he wrong?

Yes.

What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact?

Own it.

Apologize.

He has.

Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.

What about the conscience of the person who’s mortified by what Trump said, yet still plans on supporting him in the election? Is it hypocrisy to endorse a man who has this kind of dynamic in his past?

No.

It would be hypocritical to contribute to a Democrat victory by either not voting for him or refusing to vote at all. It’s his platform that I’m supporting, not the actions and attitudes he displayed in 2005.

Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in.

I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I’m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.

VI) Connecting the Dots

Here’s the bottom line:

Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle.

Why?

Is it because of what he says?

To some extent.

But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.

America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control.

And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots. Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would think Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at.

But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen.

The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements.

He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.” While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.

I’m voting for Trump.

VII) Parting Thoughts

  • When Obama leaves office, he will have accumulated more debt than every president before him combined.
  • Paul Ryan, the current Republican Speaker of the House, came out recently and stated that he would not support Donald Trump as president.

Those two dynamics taken together represent a need to interrupt politics as usual and assert a personality that is not dependent on a government check for their sustenance, nor is he resolved to lessen the substance of America, all the while claiming to do so in the name of equal opportunity and justice.

RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action.

This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.6

Now you’ve got talking heads in the Republican party conveniently broadcast by the liberal media stating that they will not support Trump. At this point, as a whole, they’ve so worn out their welcome in the mind of the attentive voter that their endorsement doesn’t really matter. If anything, it reinforces the notion that they realize there’s a new sheriff in town who will hold them accountable and that makes them squirm.

As far as Barak Obama and the Democrat party is concerned, consider this: Andrew Jackson established himself as a wealthy man through the art of extortion – specifically in the context of real estate. He positioned himself as the “Great Father” to Indians before either manipulating them or forcefully removing them from their land. This was happening while he was simultaneously deploying surveyors to assess the same land at which point he would buy it and then sell it at a tremendous profit.

Steve Inskeep, in his book, “Jacksonland” elaborates by saying:

Jackson managed national security affairs in a way that match his interest in land development…He shaped his real estate investments to compliment his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.7

Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement.

The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.

The events leading up to the Civil War, in terms of the preservation of slavery, were championed by Democrats. Not just in the South, but even Northern Democrats were vehement in their belief that slavery was a good thing and even healthy for blacks. As stated in the Charleston Mercury during the Secession debate, the duty of the South was to, “…rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported…the rights of the South.”8

Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin.

It’s not.

It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party. It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.

But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War.

The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”9

The fact of the matter was, the Democrats needed the black vote. As the South became less agrarian, the Republican message of upward mobility resonated more so than Racism. As more and more white people migrated over to the Republican side, the black vote grew more crucial.

It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed.

So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of Racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into Fascism.

Obamacare, free college education, EPA regulations, financial subsidies – these all represent stages of increasing government control. On the surface, it may appear like a logical solution to the challenges facing individuals, but there’s more to it than that. Obamacare represents control over the healthcare industry. Secondary education, the energy sector and the banking industry are all being retooled to make them more accessible, but the catch is that the government now has control, and this is the goal of the Progressive movement that characterizes the Democrat party.

FDR admired Mussolini. JFK had some good things to say about Hitler before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and compelled the USA to enter WWII. Prior to that, however, Fascism appealed to FDR for the way in which economic unrest could justify greater control over the private sector. The “New Deal” centralized power; put a new class of planners in charge of the productive wealth of the society, restricted the operation of the free market and used modern propaganda techniques to rally the masses in the name of collective solidarity.

In the aftermath of WWII, the terminology had to be made more subtle and approachable, but the aim remained the same. A new approach, a different vocabulary, but the same goal.

Saul Alinski represents the next phase of Progressivism in that he was able to enhance the technique represented by the mafioso phrase, “a deal you can’t refuse.” He found that by approaching an industry or an iconic company, simply by threatening to create a disturbance in the name of “injustice,” he could extort all kinds of favors and financial rewards.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, a promising young man became fascinated with the legacy of Saul Alinski and the way in which he could extract change and resources through extortion. While Alinski had passed away in 1972, his operation still thrived. He would have to move to Chicago, however. Later, this young man would write a book and say, “All the strands of my life came together and I really became a man when I moved to Chicago.”10 He would teach workshops and over time assume greater amounts of responsibility. He would actually be elected to the Senate and today he is leader of the free world.

While he’s often heralded as a champion of the working man and an advocate of civil rights, his actions and his words reveal otherwise. Still, the fact that he was successful in his shakedown operations was appealing, especially to young people in the sixties who saw the establishment as something that needed to be changed.

One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority.

Alinski disagreed.

Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School. Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong.

By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned.

In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.

VIII) Conclusion

The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda.

But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage.

It’s twisted, but it’s real.

And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.

I will vote for Donald Trump.

1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)
2. Ibid, p99
3. Ibid, p129
4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40
5. Ibid, p109
6. Ibid, 171
7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104
8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69
9. Ibid, p139
10. Ibid, p163
11. Ibid, p171