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.

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.

Senator Van Hollen and Secretary Rubio

Senator Van Hollen recently spoke before a committee where he confronted Secretary Rubio and said that he regretted having voted for him for Secretary of State. His comments were insulting, but, at the same time, they reveal the underlying problem that serves as the source for the tension that exists in our society today.

The problem is the way in which you define truth.

If you see yourself as the gauge by which all things are measured, then truth is whatever it is you want to believe in that moment. Should someone disagree with you, they’re not speaking the “truth,” so they can then be logically labeled a “liar.”

If they’re a “liar,” then they’re not merely mistaken, they’re immoral. If that person is a politician, they’re not a leader, they’re a tyrant. And those that support a tyrant aren’t voters, they’re Nazis.

This is the source of all the tension that exists in our society today. It’s not about USAID or Illegal Immigration or the Oval Office. Those are topics, but the tension is the way in which you define truth.

If you are you own bottom line, then you can dismiss the evidence that conclusively proves you to be wrong simply by declaring it to be irrelevant. Not because it’s anything less than conclusive, but simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

You have that power because you’ve authorized yourself to replace principles with preferences and reduced every incontrovertible fact to a situation where someone is forcing their beliefs on you.

You don’t want people to be fair, you want people to be quiet. You have to talk over your opponent because you don’t want the audience to hear what you can’t dispute. The great thing about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is that it can be verified. Your corrupted version can only be allowed.

In this clip, Senator Van Hollen begins by declaring himself a victim. He’s disappointed and feels betrayed. By positioning yourself as someone who’s wounded, you’re able to get people to feel sorry for you which helps distract from the fact that you’re never going to get people to agree with you.

When Secretary Rubio referenced gang members being deported to El Salvador, Van Hollen did his best to talk over the Secretary insisting that what was being said was “unsubstantiated.” This goes back to the way in which you define truth. If you’re determined to force the world to function according to the way you feel as opposed to what is real, you will refer to anything you don’t want to hear as a lie, or, in this case, “unsubstantiated.”

Same sex marriage, Socialism, Abortion, Illegal Immigration…

These are not controversial issues. The “controversy” is embedded in the way you define you define truth.

To read more about the legal bottom lines that characterize the deportation of Albrego Garcia, click here.

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.

Chapters and Verses

I’m thinking there is a war being fought on two fronts.

  • there’s the battle that’s happening in the secular marketplace where godless agendas are being disguised as either scientific sounding conclusions or emotionally distraught appeals
  • …then there’s the tension that exists in the church where you’ve got some believers advocating a faith that is either withdrawn or corrupted as a response to the philosophical demons knocking on the front door of both our nation and our homes

Some of what’s out there is easy to spot. Bogus narratives that border on outrageous are obvious. And then there’s the dynamic that becomes suspect when all you hear is a negative spin on that individual or that idea that deviates from the headline being featured in today’s news. After a while it becomes easy to dismiss what is obviously a biased perspective based more on personal baggage than it is objective analysis.

But it becomes really convoluted when you start hearing things from behind the pulpit that sound biblically credible according to certain passages of Scripture, yet lack substance when held up to the whole of God’s Word.

I’m being told by some Christian commentators that God doesn’t care about Politics, that I need to repent of my support of systemic racism and to stay off of social media. Couple that with the incessant criticism of Conservative Politics and everything it supposedly represents and it can get confusing.

Chapter and Verse

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight. Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other.

A.W. Tozer

“Chapter and verse!” is a line that’s used from time to time when somebody want to challenge the biblical validity of a point that’s being made. But as the conversation becomes more populated with videos and blogs and channels and talk shows, you can’t allow yourself to be content with a mere “chapter and verse…” Now, you’ve got to vet things with “chapters and verses.”

And I don’t mean just searching the Bible for as many verses as you can find that support your preferred take on a particular issue. I mean, “digging” to find all of what God has to say about a situation because it’s not uncommon to find that more than one verse applies. And unless you’re taking that kind of approach, something’s going to get left out and your convictions, however passionate, will be similar to a bird attempting to fly on one wing (see side bar).

Potentially Unhealthy Distraction

For example, to say that God doesn’t care about politics is a reasonable position to take given the priority that God places on a person’s eternal health.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

This is good, and pleases God our Savior,4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

 And then when you look at the way the angel responded to Joshua in chapter five:

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14“Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.”

It’s obvious that our focus should be on our relationship to God through Christ and to pay too much attention to other matters such as politics is to engage in a potentially unhealthy distraction.

But that’s not all the Bible has to say about rulers or politics in general.

But That’s Not All…

First of all, when you look at Joshua 5:13-14, the sturdy soldier that Joshua was questioning was not referring to the cause he was championing when he gave his answer. Rather, he was telling Joshua he was neither a member of the garrison of Jericho, nor was he a part of the Israeli army – he was the commander of God’s Army. The Agenda that he had, however, was very much in line with the Israeli army, not because the Israelites were deserving or capable of a military victory, but because they were advancing the Truth and, this case, the Justice of God.

It’s not so much that the God was on the side of the Israelites, although the dramatic wins that characterized the Campaign of the Promised Land might suggest that. The fact of the matter was the Israelites were on God’s side and that’s what made all the difference (Ps 44:3).

That’s the “thing” that qualifies virtually any discipline, topic, event or candidate as an entity that merits God’s Interest and Attention. To suggest that the only time He involves Himself is when the subject matter pertains to the issue of Salvation exclusively is to ignore the way in which God is revealed in Scripture.

God works through human institutions and authorities to accomplish His Purposes. You see that in the way He hardened Pharaoh’s heart to facilitate the Exodus. He used King Cyrus to give the Israelites the legislative green light they needed in order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem. He used Quirinius to institute a census that would bring Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, He used taxes to illustrate how we are to allocate our sense of duty and responsibility.

The Old Testament devotes four books to chronicle the actions of all the kings of Israel,1 we’re commanded to pray for kings and those in positions of authority that we might live peaceful and godly lives, He stresses the importance of godly leadership by highlighting how citizens beneath the tyrannical boot of a wicked ruler  are miserable. He commends godly leadership, He despises evil rulers, He hates dishonest scales and He encourages political involvement.

Furthermore, “…there are 642 verses that refer to law, laws and lawlessness. There are 211 verses that refer to judgment, judges, and judging, and 561 verses that speak about justice. There are 195 verses that talk about courts, 301 verses that talk about ruling and rulers, and 100 verses that speak of governing and government. And, finally, in case you still think that God doesn’t care about politics, law and government, remember what the Old Testament prophet Isaiah said about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders” (Isaiah 9:6).”2

God cares about Politics.

Too often, well meaning believers unwittingly side with an evil campaign convinced that the questions which would otherwise reveal insufficient answers are irrelevant if not cruel. As a result, Truth is replaced with accuracy and the shortfall is allowed to metastasize right up to the point when the curtain is finally drawn but by then it’s too late.

A Comprehensive Application of God’s Word

And the reason He cares about Politics is the same reason He cares about anything else and that is because He is working in and through every nuance of the human experience. No one is on the bench. Everyone of us is on the field and we all operate in the context of His Sovereignty and, as believers, we’re all expected to be making a difference and not just an appearance.

That’s why we pray, that’s why we vote and that’s why we pay attention to what’s going on so when it’s time to act we can do so based on convictions that aren’t just informed, but they’ve been vetted using a comprehensive application of God’s Word…

…not just a “chapter and a verse.”

Noble Sounding Phrases

The enemy rarely packages his plans in the context of something that’s obviously sinister. Bogus and even wicked agendas are frequently delivered in the context of noble sounding phrases designed to make a lie appear to be a victimized and helpless underdog. Too often, well meaning believers unwittingly side with an evil campaign convinced that the questions which would otherwise reveal insufficient answers are irrelevant if not cruel. As a result, Truth is replaced with accuracy and the shortfall is allowed to metastasize right up to the point when the curtain is finally drawn but by then it’s too late.

The fact of the matter is if those believers who insist that we need to withdraw from volatile issues such as politics and cultural hot buttons were alive in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been written. And if those who believe that politics and matters of state need to be completely divorced from one another had constituted the bulk of those who fought for independence, not only would the Revolutionary War not have occurred, but the philosophical framework that supports our approach to government would’ve looked more like the failed French Revolution that was based on humanism as opposed to the successful war for independence that was based on a Divine Absolute.

We engage, we stay informed and we converse. We don’t let the inaccurate narratives go unchallenged, we see through the misleading headlines and we stand by the Absolutes as expressed in Scripture as liberating and beneficial and not cruel and antiquated.

This is all not only possible but genuinely inspiring when done in a way that’s bold and enthusiastic and based on, not just those portions of Scripture that appeal to our potentially biased preferences…

…but expressed in a way that’s based on Scripture as a whole resulting in a platform that is both True and Inviting.

It’s not just a “chapter and a verse.”

It’s “chapters and verses.”

1. First and Second Kings, First and Second Chronicles. Also, the book of Ezra and Nehemiah include substantial content that reveal the political climate of the time.
2. “First Person: Does God Care Abo0ut Politics”, David Shelley, Baptist Press, August 30, 2010, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/first-person-does-god-care-about-politics/, accessed December 27, 2020

Atheism

atheistBeing an Atheist is often promoted by its adherents as an enlightened and liberating approach to life in that it’s unhindered by “ancient texts” and the restrictions that those religious paradigms attach to their followers. But strip away liturgy and dogma and religion is whatever a person uses to answer four basic questions:

• How did life begin? (Origin)
• How am I supposed to be behave (Morality)
• What’s the point of my existence? (Meaning)
• Is there life after death? (Destiny)

How you answer those questions is captured in your religious convictions. From that standpoint, the atheist is just as “religious” as they’re Christian counterpart, the only difference is that they choose to answer those questions according to a completely humanistic paradigm, which in some ways requires more faith than the faith deployed by a born again believer.

Here’s the thing: Hiding beneath the atheist’s indignant refusal to accept anything other than what can be proven or understood, is a desperate attempt to make a world based on mathematical absurdities, philosophical dead ends and indefinite moral boundaries sound fulfilling. When you dismiss God from the equation, all that you have left to explain and legitimize your existence is both temporary and relative. You are a lucky accident hoping that the next level of success and gratification translates to a lasting confidence that you matter and your life has meaning.

The problem is, regardless of how noble or stimulating your experiences may be, if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is inconclusive. In short, you don’t have a foundation, only an imaginary paradigm rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself its own philosophical bottom line. And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

Let’s take a look…

The Meaning of Life

As far as the “meaning of life” is concerned, according to the atheist, one’s purpose and significance is derived from the pleasant things in their life.

David Niose is an attorney who has served as president of two Washington-based humanist advocacy groups, the American Humanist Association and the Secular Coalition for America. He is author of Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans and Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason. In an article written for Psychology Today, he elaborates on how both the godly and the godless can find rich meaning in their lives. He says:

Having rejected myth and ancient texts as authorities for defining life’s purpose, nonbelievers get meaning and joy from family, friends, loved ones, nature, art and music, and their work.

But life isn’t always pleasant. Julian Baggini takes note of this in an article entitled, “Yes, Life Without God Can be Bleak. Atheism is About Facing up to That.” It’s part of a series of articles featured in The Guardian designed to, “…redraw the battle lines in the God wars and establish a new heathen manifesto.” He says:

Given how the atheist stereotype has been one of the dark, brooding existentialist gripped by the angst of a purposeless universe, this is understandable. But frankly, I think we’ve massively overcompensated, and in doing so we’ve blurred an important distinction. Atheists should point out that life without God can be meaningful, moral and happy. But that’s “can” not “is” or even “should usually be.”  And that means it can just as easily be meaningless, nihilistic and miserable.

So, whether it’s joy or despair, for the atheist, purpose and significance is derived from however you choose to respond to the circumstances you either manufacture or those that simply happen.

The problem, though, is that there is no point. Pleasure and joy in and of themselves are sensations and not destinations. First of all, deriving your sense of purpose from the amount of pleasure you experience in whatever areas you engage requires an ever increasing degree of stimulation to keep you convinced that you have value. Secondly, even if you want to say that you’re getting pleasure from being philanthropic and giving sacrificially, you can’t posit your definition of what constitutes a noble purpose as something that means anything because if there is no such thing as an Absolute, then there is no Standard by which you can measure your life to prove that you have any real merit. And however you want to insist that “society” or “civilized people” will appreciate your contribution, the fact is you have value only for as long as you’re surrounded by people who agree with your philosophical manifesto.

On the other hand…

You were created by a loving God with a Purpose that resonates as both meaningful and eternal. You don’t concern yourself with “positive thinking,” instead you engage in “profound thinking.” With that approach, you’re not simply being selective in what you want to think about, instead you focus on the One Who your circumstances answer to knowing that “all things work together for the good of those who love Him. (Rom 8:28)”

Morals

As a Christian, you base your morals on the Absolutes as they’re communicated in Scripture. An atheist, on the other hand, believes that ethics and morals flow from a natural desire to thrive both as individuals and in the context of community. In his essay, “Ethics Without God,” Frank Zindler, former President and current Board Member of American Atheists, explains the difference between “enlightened self-interest” and “un-enlightened self-interest.”

The principle of “enlightened self-interest” is an excellent first approximation to an ethical principle which is both consistent with what we know of human nature and is relevant to the problems of life in a complex society. Let us examine this principle. First we must distinguish between “enlightened” and “unenlightened” self-interest. Let’s take an extreme example for illustration. Suppose you lived a totally selfish life of immediate gratification of every desire. Suppose that whenever someone else had something you wanted, you took it for yourself. It wouldn’t be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts – but it is not likely to last long. The person who practices “enlightened” self-interest, by contrast, is the person whose behavioral strategy simultaneously maximizes both the intensity and duration of personal gratification. An enlightened strategy will be one which, when practiced over a long span of time, will generate ever greater amounts and varieties of pleasures and satisfactions.

He goes on to reinforce the idea that our personal approach to ethics will inevitably be driven by our natural regard for a healthy community:

Because we have the nervous systems of social animals, we are generally happier in the company of our fellow creatures than alone. Because we are emotionally suggestible, as we practice enlightened self-interest we usually will be wise to choose behaviors which will make others happy and willing to cooperate and accept us – for their happiness will reflect back upon us and intensify our own happiness. On the other hand, actions which harm others and make them unhappy – even if they do not trigger overt retaliation which decreases our happiness – will create an emotional milieu which, because of our suggestibility, will make us less happy.

In short, the person who does not believe in God sees morality as an enlightened application of those behaviors that are most beneficial to himself and his neighbors.

Creation

Typically, atheists tend to believe in Evolution as being the driving force behind the initiation of the universe and humanity.

In a speech entitled, “Evolution and Atheism: Best friends Forever,” given by Jerry Coyne at FFRF‘s 39th annual convention in Pittsburgh on October 8th, 2017, he said this:

Here’s my thesis for the evening: The fact of evolution is not only inherently atheistic, it is inherently anti-theistic. It goes against the notion that there is a god. Accepting evolution and science tends to promote the acceptance of atheism. Now, it doesn’t always, of course. There are many religious people who accept evolution. I would say they’re guilty of cognitive dissonance, or at least of some kind of watery deism. The path from going to an evolutionary biologist to an atheist is pretty straightforward. You write a book on evolution with the indubitable facts showing that it has to be true, as true as the existence of gravity or neutrons, and then you realize that half of America is not going to buy it no matter what you say. Their minds cannot be changed; their eyes are blinkered.

Mutations are random, and where there is order, it can be explained by an organism’s need to adapt to it’s environment. In other words, according to the atheist, God is completely unnecessary, as far as being able to explain the origin of the universe and the precise organization that characterizes both organisms and the inorganic material found in nature. While there are many brilliant minds, both throughout history and in today’s scientific community who disagree, according to some atheists, the science that backs up the claim that life is the result of evolution is conclusive and isn’t questioned by any rationale human being.

Life After Death

While most religions advocate the idea of life after death, the atheist does not. In their spiritual universe, once you take your last breath, you simply cease to exist. The well known physicist, Stephen Hawking, captures that notion in a 2011 interview he did with The Guardian.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” he told the Guardian. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
What’s So Great About Christianity?

John Polkinghorne was professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979. He is among those who looked at the same data as Jerry Coyne and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In addition, here’s a partial list of leading scientists who were believers: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descrates, Bolye, Newton, Leibiz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Levin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Palnck, Mendel. A good number of these scientists were clergymen. Gassendi and Mersenne were priests. So was Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian astronomer who first proposed the “Big Bang” theory of the universe. Mendel, whose discovery of the principles of heredity would provide vital support for the theory of evolution, spent his entire life as a monk in an Augustinian monastery.

Where would science be without these men? Some were Protestant and some were Catholic, but all saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms.

1 John Polkinghorne himself resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, from 1988 until 1996.

You Have Nothing to Start With, So…

Part of what makes the mindset of the atheist so nonsensical is the way in which they assume the existence of the laws and materials necessary to create life. Unless you can explain the origin of the intangibles that govern the manner in which the physical world operates, you’re not explaining how all of these things came to be anymore than describing traffic patterns explains the origin of an automobile.

In Mathematics you have what is called the Null Set. It’s a symbol that represents a value that doesn’t exist. For example, Let A = {x : 9 < x < 10, x is a natural number}. There is no natural number that exists between 9 and 10. 

To satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe, your starting point must be the cosmological equivalent to the Null Set as far as having neither matter nor math. In other words, you have neither raw materials nor ordered systems within which these assumed materials can interact with one another. You have nothing to start with. So, you can’t have a “Big Bang,” because you have no Laws of Physics that would dictate an explosion nor do you have any materials that could combine in a way that could potentially combust. And however someone might want to steer clear of a Divine Personality (as opposed to a stoic machine) lurking behind the invention of all that’s necessary to “create,” this same “force” must also be capable of creating beauty, love, peace and joy – things that exist outside the realm of material things.

It’s here where the futility of an atheist’s viewpoint becomes obvious. When the material precision of the created order coupled with the intangible realities of the human experience are fully appreciated, the mathematical impossibilities are so extensive, what is thrust upon the public as enlightened sophistication is revealed as a self absorbed desperation on the part of the atheist to declare himself as his own absolute.

The fact is, you have any one of a number of brilliant and accomplished minds who believe that God, not Random Selection, is the impetus behind the universe and all of life as we know it (see sidebar). So, for Jerry Coyne and those who think like him to insist that Evolution is a foregone conclusion, they’re either oblivious or indifferent to any platform save their own.

You Are Your Own Bottom Line

While all religions agree that humanity is flawed, only Christianity posits the idea that man can’t make things right on his own. So, whether a person defines themselves as a Muslim or an atheist, both are subscribing to a “religion” that positions man as his own spiritual remedy and with that choice comes a morality that’s used to advance a person’s spiritual status in the eyes of their chosen deity.

With Islam, you’re abiding by the morals outline in the  Q’uaran to please Allah. As a Buddhist, your morals are aligned with whatever best achieves Nirvana. As an atheist, your morals are crafted in a manner that best satisfy whatever requirements you have prescribed for yourself.

Those religions that direct the attention of their followers to either a supernatural personality or a heightened sense of well being generally require some kind of discipline or self-denial in that you are answering to someone or something other than yourself. An atheist, on the other hand, answers only to himself. That doesn’t mean they are, by default, depraved. What it does mean is that theirs is the only signature required on the hypothetical document that outlines what is wrong versus what is right. And though they may insist that their morals are configured so as to benefit society, it is still their definition of what is beneficial that dictates their moral code. In other words, as an atheist you are your own bottom line. And however that perspective is cloaked in noble sounding verbiage, it is still a scenario where the Absolute of God is replaced with the absolute of one’s self.

What’s the Point?

From the perspective of an atheist, you live however you choose. There is no transcendent moral standard that everyone is obligated to conform to. Any “good” that one does is purely subjective and whatever “unenlightened self-interest” you may be guilty of, the repercussions, while they may be unfortunate, are not errors that you are to be held accountable for by some eternal scorekeeper. Thomas Jefferson held that the notion of an eternal source of accountability provided an effective motivation to do good and avoid evil.

A firm believer in man’s free will, he [Thomas Jefferson] thought that good works were the way to salvation and that rewards and punishments for actions on earth were “an important incentive” for people to act ethically.2

But then again, what is “good” if there is no Absolute basis for it? And for that matter, what is “evil?” If the only absolute the atheist is willing to acknowledge is the absolute of themselves, then everything about their existence is conditioned according to what they’re willing to observe, experience and accept. Not only are they their own moral bottom line, but they themselves become the standard by which the entire universe is measured. Moreover, if their argument is to have any validity, then every member of the human race needs to be able to discriminate however their perspective dictates as well. So, the end result is a never ending tension between the way in which one person defines something as morally substantive and another individual can look at the same thing and dismiss it as either inconsequential or even sinister.

In short, there is no “meaning,” only the extent to which one’s appetites can be momentarily gratified. And even then, if the only object is to punctuate the tedium of one’s existence with as many temporary stimulations as possible, at what juncture does it become unavoidable to ask, “What’s the point?

Conclusion

There’s really no such thing as an atheist.  If “god” is whatever you use to answer the philosophical questions that require a response from every human being as far as one’s origin, life after death, right versus wrong and what’s the point of a person’s existence, then the atheist is simply declaring “god” to be the one that stares back at them in the mirror every morning.

Now…

• the individual can claim themselves to be a product of Natural Selection and therefore owes God no acknowledgement for their birth or existence
• the individual can define their own morality and completely ignore God’s commands
• the individual can view life as nothing more than a dash between two dates and deny there’s a Divine Purpose to be lived out and enjoyed
• the individual can deny any accountability to a Higher Power other than themselves and death is now nothing more than a last gasp with no reward or chastisement to consider afterwards

But it’s not a liberation, it’s an incarceration. The atheist has fastened a philosophical ball and chain to their ankle by insisting that anything which can’t be fit on the dinner plate of the human intellect simply doesn’t belong on the table. A person may think that they don’t need God, but in the absence of God all they have is themselves. Not only is that a poor substitute… …it’s a poison that restricts a man to fulfillments that can’t last, accomplishments that can be undone and a death that can only be mourned.

For further reading…

Christianity – It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person
G-R-A-V-I-T-Y

1. “What’s So Great About Christianity”, Dinesh D’Souza, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois, 2007, p99
2. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs”, monticello.org, https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs, accessed December 31, 2020

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!