Is Homosexuality Sinful? | Part V

/in , , /by

This is the fifth and final installment of “Is Homosexuality Sinful?” Framed around a graphic that proposes a line of logic that supposedly reveals the conservative Christian disposition towards same sex marriage as being antiquated and foolish, this series of articles looks at the verses that are referenced in the graphic and shows how the conclusions being drawn by those that sneer at Christianity are neither biblically based nor are they logical.

A conquered nation

The advocates of same sex marriage want to point to the way in which female prisoners of war were betrothed to the soldiers who had conquered their nation. You see an example of this in Numbers 31, but again, when you take the time to study what was going on, you walk away with a much different conclusion then what you would have if you had simply glossed over the text.

The Midianites were a nation that had sought to destroy Israel’s by aligning themselves with Moab in Numbers 22:1-7. These two nations had agreed that, in light of what Israel has accomplished by so completely devastating their Amorite foes in Numbers 21, they were a serious threat. Though Israel had no plans to attack Moab or Midian, the combined forces of Moab and Midian launched an aggressive campaign designed to eliminate God’s people. It began by the hiring of Balaam, a pagan priest, who was employed for the sake of cursing Israel.

While military action might seem more effective, bear in mind that these two nations were convinced that the use of force would only be met with failure in light of Israel having already proved herself so capable in destroying her enemies. Hence a spiritual strategy was chosen. Balaam, however, was astute enough to realize that you cannot hope to curse who God has chosen to bless and after four attempts that backfired, Balaam then recommended that Moab and Midian attempt to compromise Israel by enticing the Hebrew males to worship Baal in the context of engaging in Canaanite fertility rites. Thought that might seem like a weak plan, it proved very effective in that many men did have sex with the Moabite women and subsequently engaged in idolatry.

Idolatry is more than it might appear to be on the surface, given the casual regard our culture has for, “religion.” The fact of the matter is that what you worship determines the way in which you process yourself and the world around you. While the word, “worship” isn’t used a great deal outside faith-based circles, it nevertheless describes the very practical and universal approach that people use in the way they engage life.

One of the definitions of worship is, “an extravagant respect or admiration.” What you perceive as important shapes the way you prioritize your time and your resources. In other words, what you worship dictates your ambitions, your priorities, your values – everything that figures into the way you approach your existence. This is why God was, and is, so adamant in the way in which He instructs His people to worship Him. It’s not because He’s starving for validation as much as He knows that by focusing on Him, His Word and His Direction, the resulting existence is characterized by significance, fulfillment and purpose. Otherwise, it’s a collection of distractions that prevent true success and inevitably reduces the individual to a self-serving destiny characterized by a perpetual feeling of frustration in that they can’t possess what they desire and / or they’re dissatisfied by the hollow brand of contentment provided by what they do have. And it’s more than just dissatisfaction or disillusion, it’s death. Ignoring God and placing yourself on the throne of your life has eternal consequences because you can’t hope to rate being admitted into Heaven apart from being morally blameless (see Matt 5:48; Romans 6:23; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:16).

Moral perfection, while impossible for a human standpoint, is nevertheless the spiritual status you and I are awarded when we accept that Christ’s sacrifice was for us and not some noble act that was accomplished in a general sense. It’s when we accept Him as our personal Savior that the blameless dynamic of God becomes ours by virtue of Christ’s Spirit living in us. Still tainted and distracted by sin, yes, but rather than being slaves to our sinful nature, now we have the power to choose, and our failures are atoned for wherever we fall short.

It’s an amazing exchange – to hand over our weakness and be given strength in return. To surrender our inability and receive the Power and Identity of God – that goes beyond generous. That’s why they call it, “amazing grace.” The life we live in this world is illustrated either by wandering in the dark or walking in the light. One scenario is searching, the other is advancing. One of those situations is fulfilled and confident, the other is forever exasperated by a cup that can never be filled, and a sense of self that can never be completely validated. It’s in Christ where you’re able to, not only understand that you were created to make a difference and not just an appearance, it’s through Him that you’re able to live out that purpose using the gifts and abilities He’s given in the context of the situations you recognize as instances He has orchestrated.

Molech was the god of Ammonites and it was common to sacrifice your children to this god in order to win his favor. God looked at that practice as being absolutely wrong and categorized it as something worthy of the death penalty. In so doing, He protected the innocent children that would’ve otherwise been murdered, and He put in place a dynamic that would inspire some second thoughts before engaging in that kind of behavior.

But it’s all for naught if the person who stands to receive this gift chooses to worship something or someone other than God, and that’s why God is so understandably aggressive when He says to worship Him only because it’s only by focusing your attention on Him that you’re able to avoid those things that would otherwise result in your demise.

God puts up guardrails in your life to prevent you from wandering over into the median. In some cases, He puts up a fence. You cross that line and there will be consequences. In other situations, He puts up a concrete barrier. You insist on driving over that kind of obstacle and you have life altering consequences to contend with. In some cases, you lose your life. Anything that God has defined as a capital offense is one of those concrete barriers He has established as a way to say that on the other side of this line is a world of hurt that is substantial enough to justify this kind of guardrail.

If you lie, you have sinned and God has put up a metal guardrail to identify that kind of behavior as wrong (see Proverbs 12:22 [The Message]). When you look at God’s moral law where adultery, murder and homosexuality is concerned, you’ve got concrete to consider. While Christ’s death and resurrection provide a way around the death penalty, the fact that those infractions have been categorized as those that justify concrete guardrails indicate the potential damage that those kind of behaviors produce.

Worship is another example of a concrete guardrail in that God decreed that if you were to engage in some of the more heinous types of idol worship, you were to be put to death. For example, Israel was commanded to put all witches to death when He said in Exodus 22:18, “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” If you were foolish enough to engage in the worship of Molech, the god of the Ammonites, which included the sacrifice of your children, that was another instance where you to be put to death (see Leviticus 20:1-5 and sidebar). But look at this:

58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. (Dt 28:58-61)

Did you see that in verse 61? Israel as a nation would be destroyed if it insisted on maintaining a lifestyle characterized by idolatry and rebellion. Mind you, this wasn’t missing church on Sunday or failing to do your quiet time that morning where you were running behind. This is a pattern of rebelliousness where you’re enthusiastically embracing everything that is contrary to God, and God doesn’t play that game.

For those that are thinking: “You’re telling me that if I don’t worship God, He’s going to put me to death? That doesn’t sound like a loving God!” There are two things that need to be considered when you’re questioning God’s apparent disposition in Deuteronomy 28: Divine Direction and Practical Reverence. God delivers you from Egypt, He accomplishes phenomenal military victories through you by allowing you to defeat enemies that are infinitely more powerful and capable than you, He sets up a system of laws and guidelines that allow you to live and prosper in a way that far exceeds even the grandest aspirations of your pagan counterparts and all you need to do in return is stay focused on Him.

Why is it so important to obey Him and worship Him? Because it’s through the counsel you receive from Him that you’re able to avoid all of those things that would otherwise limit and ultimately destroy you. It’s the Divine Direction that He provides that while it doesn’t always make sense, is nevertheless completely accurate. Israel was surrounded by alluring influences that were, in fact, lethal compromises. From a human standpoint, what can appear logical and even healthy, is actually the exact opposite when viewed from a perspective that can see into the future as well as view the inner workings of a man’s heart.

All of those things that we contend with on a day to day basis that cannot be accurately forecasted or controlled are known and subject to God’s Authority. We lament the way in which the random winds of life sometimes do us harm and all the while God stands at the ready to either calm the storm or provide the strength we need in order to endure. But we have to be willing to accept His Help and the wisdom He would impart to us. We have to be willing to obey and that’s what God was communicating to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 28. If you want the Direction that is guaranteed to accurately direct and deliver you, then you’ve got to listen and obey what it is that God’s telling you.

That’s the Divine Direction piece.

As far as the Practical Reverence dynamic is concerned, here’s what you’ve got to bear in mind: You were created by God. Whether or not you believe that is irrelevant in that it is true. You had a beginning prior to your birth in that God knew you before you made your entrance into this world (Ps 139:14-16; Jer 1:5). God made you because He loved you. You see that in 1 John 4:19.

Take a look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary on that verse:

His love is the incentive, the motive, and moral cause of ours. We cannot but love so good a God, who was first in the act and work of love, who loved us when we were both unloving and unlovely, who loved us at so great a rate, who has been seeking and soliciting our love at the expense of his Son’s blood; and has condescended to beseech us to be reconciled unto him. Let heaven and earth stand amazed at such love! (Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 John 4:19)

As part of the way in which He loves us, He gave us specific gifts and skills that manifest themselves in actions and accomplishments that we are uniquely qualified to execute. Ephesians 2:10 talks about how we are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works which He prepared in advance for us to do. He’s your King, your Creator and your Redeemer. To respond to those Truths by not only ignoring Him, but to spit in His face by running after every act and disposition that opposes Him is the height of arrogance. And that indignant dynamic is further compounded by the way in which many will insist that God has no claim or right to who they are. They don’t see themselves as created or in need of being redeemed. Rather they perceive themselves as a self-sufficient enterprise whose only purpose is to gratify every whim, desire and appetite that they can come up with.

Midian and Moab

Midian was the son of Abraham born to him through Keturah, a concubine who bore him several children (see Gen 25:1-6; 1 Chron 1:32). It was to the land of Midian that Moses fled after he had killed the Egyptian in Exodus 1:11-12 and Moses’ father-in-law was a Midianite priest (see Ex 2:16-21).

It must’ve been difficult for Moses to engage in so brutal an action against his in laws in Numbers 31, but then again the actions of his in laws which had so provoked the Lord to destroy the Midianites were unconscionable.

Bear in mind, it wasn’t just what the Midianites had done in partnership with the Moabites as far as seducing Israel, it was also the belligerent act of Cozbi, the Midianite woman who sneered at God’s Authority by having sex with an Israelite in the plain sight of the assembly in Numbers 25:16-17.

Think about it!

While Israel was weeping, begging for God to relent and lift the plague that had been unleashed as a disciplinary act for the recent plunge into idolatry and decadence, this woman, along with an idiotic Israelite, engaged in the very thing that had provoked God in the first place. Her act, while done in partnership with a Hebrew, was indicative of the complete lack of regard the Midianites had for God and how steeped they were in the worship of Baal. And it’s for that reason that God commanded the Israelites to regard the Midianites as enemies.

This is the person that Paul describes in Romans 3:10-18. It’s a prideful and irreverent brat that’s being described and what’s disconcerting is that every one of us fits that description.

To say that we’re, “not that bad” is to overlook the fact that sin, while there are varying depths of depravity, when you’re comparing yourself to the Perfection of God, the absence of scandalous transgressions doesn’t change the fact that you are still sinful. And that sin incurs a debt that must be paid and exerts an influence that cannot be overcome (see Rom 6:6, 23).

Apart from Christ, you’re ultimately restricted to a temporary existence that never truly satisfies and an eternal residence characterized by pain and despair (Ecc 5:10; 6:7; Lk 13:27-28).

That’s why worship is so important.

If your focus is on anything or Anyone other than Christ, then you’re missing the very thing that defines life and fulfillment. Everything else is a goal post that never stops moving and a grave that never stops devouring. It’s true today and it was true back when Moab and Midan conspired against Israel by enticing her to worship other gods.

In so doing, they declared war on God and His people. Israel could have stood up to their attacks but chose not to and that resulted in being severely disciplined by God when He said in Numbers 25:4-5 that all of the leaders in the community who engaged in worshipping Baal were to be put to death and their corpses were to be put on display.

Pretty stiff penalty, yes?

And it didn’t stop there.

In Numbers 25:6, we read about some guy who decided to thumb his nose at God and the recent display of His wrath by taking a Midianite woman into his tent to have sex with her and he did this right in front of Moses, and the whole assembly of Israel.

Pause here for a moment and realize just how belligerent you would have to be in order to flaunt your complete disregard for your God by engaging in the very thing that was currently being punished via a plague and a public execution of those leaders who were guilty of idol worship.

Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, took a spear and pierced the arrogant Hebrew and his Midianite partner simultaneously. At that point, the plague that God had sent into the Israelite community was stopped. 24,000 Hebrews had died and more would’ve passed away had it not been for the zeal of Phinehas (see Psalm 106:30).

But that gives you an idea as to the severity of Israel’s crime before the Lord by aligning themselves with another god. Hosea 1:2 describes idolatry as spiritual adultery and Israel was up to her neck in it. Given the way in which Israel is punished, you can imagine God’s disposition towards those who led Israel in their wrongdoing. Moab and Midian had declared war on God and they were subsequently dealt with. Midian is destroyed in Numbers 31. Moab wouldn’t be destroyed because the Moabites and the Israelites were related through Lot. Abraham was Lot’s uncle and in Deuteronomy 2:9 you read how God had resolved to set aside some land for his descendants and although the Moabites and the Israelites would quarrel often and sometime violently, they were never the object of God’s wrath like what you see with the Edomites or the Amalekites who were both completely wiped out (1 Sam 15:3; Jer 49:17-18).

However, as a result of their having led Israel into idolatry, Moab was prohibited from ever being a part of congregational worship (Dt 23:3). The Midianites were not so fortunate. Those that lived in the region were completely destroyed in Numbers 31 with the exception of those women who had never engaged in the idolatrous sexual practices that had been the reason for Israel getting disciplined back in Numbers 25.

It’s important to note that when Israel attacked the Midianites, they were not inspired by a lust for power, as much as they were specifically instructed by God to destroy them for what they had done in terms of leading Israel into idolatry. In other words, Midian was not a military target as much as it was the object of a holy war and that is why every man, boy and woman was executed.

From a human perspective, we can see it as being potentially reasonable that every man be killed because of the possible threat they represent as one who take military action against you. It’s difficult, however, to see why you would put a woman to death. At least it’s hard until you read in Numbers 31:15 that the women were guilty before the Lord because it was they who had led Israel into sin. It was their actions and not their gender that warranted the death penalty and that is why they were slated for destruction.

Numbers 31:17 has Moses commanding that all the boys be killed. As a father of an eight-year-old boy, that bothers me. Why would you put a boy to death? Surely, they are innocent. The dilemma is present because of the way in which I see a child. I see a youngster and the last thing I see is a threat. But that’s because I don’t see what that child will become, I simply see them for what they are at the moment. God, on the other hand, sees what a human being cannot. The fact of the matter is, a child has within them the scaffolding of that which will shape their view of themselves and the world around them at a very young age.

Consider the words of Adolph Hitler:

“These boys and girls enter our organizations [at] ten years of age, and often for the first time get a little fresh air; after four years of the Young Folk they go on to the Hitler Youth, where we have them for another four years . . . And even if they are still not complete National Socialists, they go to Labor Service and are smoothed out there for another six, seven months . . . And whatever class consciousness or social status might still be left . . . the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] will take care of that.”5

Saint Francis Xavier, a prominent Catholic missionary in the sixteenth century, once said, “Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterward.”6 Both the tyrant and the saint understood that, even at a very young age, you have the infrastructure in place that will shape the way in which that young person will process and approach life.

The fact is, the Midianites were not the only ones whose children were destroyed alongside the adults. The flood waters that carried Noah’s ark to Mount Ararat were not selective in all that was destroyed. Every living thing was wiped out according to Genesis 7:21-23. Joshua 6:21 chronicles how everyone in the city of Jericho– men and women, young and old – were put to the sword. Sodom and Gomorrah were both completely destroyed in Genesis 19.

Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah were located at the easternmost part of the land of Canaan, according to Genesis 10:19. That means that inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were descendants of Canaan.

Canaan was a grandson of Noah and a son of Ham, who was identified in Genesis 9 as being cursed because of the foul behavior that would characterize his posterity. And you see that in a big way when the men in Sodom surrounded Lot’s house wanting to have sex with the angels that had visited the city to inspect whether or not its sin was as bad as it seemed.

The Sodomites behavior left no room for doubt that the decadence of the city was everything it appeared to be. The thing is: the punishment that Sodom and Gomorrah received was not some knee jerk reaction on the part of God. Their ancestry was decadent and their lifestyle was perverse. Given their current belligerence as well as their ancestral history, the judgement they received the day that the Lord rained fire on their cities was not only well deserved, but it was also a long time in coming.

As an aside, the complete extermination of a nation or a community was not typical. In Deuteronomy 20:14, the Israelites are given, “Rules for Warfare” for those nations outside the boundaries of the Promised Land.

• When you march up against a city, make an offer of peace
• If they agree, assimilate them into your community as forced labor
• If they don’t accept your offer of peace, put every man to the sword, but spare the women and children as plunder

Bear in mind that the Israelites were not marching on these cities the way we might envision an invading force descending on lands they wish to inhabit and claim as their own. The conquest of the Promised Land was first and foremost a judgement against the Canaanites who were living there at the time.

In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says as much to the Israelites in order to remind them that their ability to dislodge the Canaanites from their land was not due to Israel’s military superiority or even their being God’s chosen people. Rather, it was the idolatry and the over-the-top perversion that had been so enthusiastically embraced by the Canaanites that had made them ripe for judgement.

And it’s not like God enjoyed carrying out His Justice. God was grieved by man’s sin in Genesis leading up to the flood in Genesis 7. Sodom and Gomorrah’s perversion is defined by God as, “grievous” in Genesis 18:20. You see the same kind of thing in Ephesians 4:29-32 where we’re admonished to not grieve the Holy Spirit by engaging in any kind of sin.

But while God didn’t enjoy it, He does not, nor will he ever, hesitate when it comes to dispatching Justice. Sodom and Gomorrah received their punishment at the Hands of a Just God. And while neither Moab nor Midian were slated to be destroyed as part of the campaign to secure the Promised Land, they too were justly punished because of the way they chose to flaunt their complete disregard for God.

That’s the thing: God was being Just! The Canaanite nations, along with Moab and Midian, were being justly punished by God and not merely attacked. Men, and those who would grow up to be men, received the death penalty from the One Who could see what they were and who they would become. Those women who had voluntarily participated in the religious rites that were not only idolatrous, but were also used as a way to bring about the destruction of Israel also received the death penalty.

That’s not ruthless, that’s Justice.

It’s tragic, but when you have a God Who is perpetually issuing a loving invitation to live and prosper in the context of honoring the One Who most deserves your allegiance and worship, and the response is arrogant, belligerent and even cruel – why be shocked or surprised by an act of Divine Discipline?

These folks deserved to be put to death. Those that were left alive were being treated mercifully. The only way a spectator could survey the landscape of these passages and walk away thinking that God is a brutal Deity that doesn’t deserve any real consideration due to the supposed lack of compassion and decency exhibited by His actions is to overlook two things:

First, He is the manifestation of Perfect Love (see 1 Jn 4:16). That is the starting point for the way in which you must define God. Provided you have that as your basis, you can then survey the judgement that God has dispensed throughout history as being just.

Secondly, He is more than worthy and deserving of your obedience and worship. His attributes are enough to support that statement. Perfect Power, Love, Strength, Wisdom – He is holy, which means total Perfection. Remember that not only was Moab a descendant of Lot – Abraham’s nephew – Midian was Abraham’s son born to him by Keturah. God was apparently willing to leave them be, yet they chose to attack Him both militarily and by violating any and every moral Absolute that God had authored. The result was a judgement that while it appeared harsh, upon closer inspection is revealed as fair and even gracious. Yes, children were put to death and that makes us squirm because from a human standpoint, children are incapable of the kind of evil that would justify that kind of punishment. But, again, God sees who they are as well as what they will become, hence His judgement can be better understood when perceived from that perspective.

The pro homosexual crew cites this whole situation outlined in Numbers 31 as being demonstrative of how God included marriages that coupled women belonging to conquered nations, such as the young Midianite ladies, with Israelite males as being acceptable. If such a union that compelled girls who had just witnessed the execution of their families and countrymen to wed and / or serve their captors was being Divinely endorsed, how then could homosexual unions be condemned?

In light of what’s been discussed as far as the severity of the attack the Midianites leveled against God and His people, the fact that everyone was to be put to death reveals the fact that anyone who was allowed to continue breathing was merciful and not ruthless. These young ladies who were given the opportunity to live were assimilated into everyday Hebrew life as domestic servants. Mind you, the age of many of these girls was such where they had to be cared for. They were pre-pubescent so that puts them between the ages of 0 and 11 with the average age being around 5. That’s not an age suitable for marriage, so to suggest that the Israelites were marrying all these girls is ridiculous. Furthermore, to assert that they were being used as sex slaves is to say that the Israelites were pedophiles which is not supported by the text and it also goes against the grain of God’s command in Leviticus 19:33 that says that you were to treat foreigners living with you kindly.

So while many might envision a parade of young Midianite women being led before a group of cheering Israelite soldiers, forced to smile as they’re being handed over to a sweaty Hebrew with blood on his hands and a twinkle in his eye, is a far cry from what actually occurred.

That being the case, the pro homosexual argument is revealed as less than compelling because the dynamic of how the Israelites assimilated captured women into their nation is something very different than then the abusive and cruel practice they wish to hold up as yet another reason to dismiss the Old Testament’s commands pertaining to homosexuality.

In Conclusion…

What reveals a particular behavior or lifestyle as being either noble or decadent is the way it aligns with the moral Absolutes that apply. Personal preferences and social norms change which is why you want to appeal to a Resource that you can know is as correct as it is permanent.

And the thing that makes it especially appealing is that there are a considerable number of benefits attached to being obedient to God’s commands. Just look at Joshua 1:8 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Yet, those that dismiss God’s Word as antiquated and irrelevant are missing out on something that goes beyond the advantages represented by godly living. When a person insists on separating themselves from God by living a life of indifference to His commands, they’re like a piece of paper in a tornado; no anchor, no direction and any sense of control is pure fiction. Solomon articulated that throughout Ecclesiastes.

On the other hand, Purpose, Peace and Power is what characterizes the person who’s handed over the keys to his Heavenly Father and allowed Him the access and the Authority that belongs to Him in the first place.

1. Wikipedia, Shatnez, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez#cite_note-0, accessed August 16, 2012
2. MacArthur Study Bible, note on Leviticus 11:1-47
3. “LDS Scripture Citation Index”, “Journal of Discourses”, http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD05/JoD05_0022.pdf, accessed September 18, 2012
4. Wikipedia, “Fanny Alger”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Alger, accessed October 21, 2012
5. “Holocaust Encyclopedia”, “Indoctrinating Youth”, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007820, accessed October 24, 2012
6. “Quotes”, “Famous Quotations That Start With G”, http://www.quotes.net/quotes/G/99999, accessed October 24, 2012

Is Homosexuality Sinful? | Part IV

/in , , , /by

Is Homosexuality sinful? There’s some who would insist that it isn’t based on a “trail” of reasons and logic that looks compelling at first, but is revealed as being less than credible once you really pop the hood on Scripture and examine the depth of what God has to say.

Welcome to Part IV!

Objection: The Bible promotes a variety of combinations when it comes to marriage including polygamy and other relationships where the woman is being subjugated and abused.

Overruled: God’s original design in Genesis, which is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, makes it abundantly clear that God’s definition of marriage is one man and one woman. The distortions that man has attempted to assert as acceptable substitutes have never, and will never be, regarded by God as holy, let alone healthy.

Documentation Versus Endorsement (Polygamy)

The problem with this objection is that it assumes that because the Bible chronicles the way in which man fell short of God’s ideal, that his actions are therefore condoned by God. That isn’t the case. Those in the pro-homosexual camp list these, “unions” as being supposedly endorsed in God’s Word:

Biblical Examples of Polygamy
Name Wives Reference
Jacob Leah and Rachel Gen 29:14-30
Gideon many wives Judges 8:30
David many wives 1 Chron 14:3
Solomon hundreds of wives 1 Kings 11:3
Joash Two Wives 2 Chron 24:3
This not a comprehensive list. Rather it shows examples of polygamy among some of the more well known personalities in the Bible.

There are a number of prominent personalities in Scripture who maintained more than one wife. But this wasn’t the original design as dictated by God. When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees in Matthew 19 about the issue of divorce, they were looking for a way to trap him knowing that His response could potentially turn the public against Him in light of the way in which marriage was so commonly practiced and perceived. There were two popular interpretations of the Mosaic Law as documented in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 at that point. One, belonging to the school of Shammai, a well known Jewish scholar of the first century, stated that the phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 declaring that a man could divorce his wife for, “something indecent” referred to adultery. The other school of thought belonging to Hillel, another accomplished Jewish theologian of the first century, believed that, “something indecent” could be something as trivial as a poorly prepared meal.

They were hoping Jesus would side with one of those two camps at which point they could either declare Jesus an opponent of the Law for agreeing with an extremely liberal interpretation of the passage in Deuteronomy, or an enemy of the people because He was threatening a liberty the masses were fond of. Jesus’ response was brilliant. Rather than address those who would attempt to interpret the Law, Jesus instead went to the very beginning, emphasizing how man was created in God’s image and how Holy Matrimony was initially established as one man and one woman united in a bond that was not to be altered or terminated by man (see Gen 2:24 Matt 19:4-6).

When pressed to comment on why Moses had published directions pertaining to divorce, Jesus replied that those directives had been given to Moses by God in order to regulate the damage that had been done to the institution of marriage as a result of the Israelites’ rebellious nature (see Matt 19:8). In that one exchange, Jesus defined any and all unions and / or practices that deviated from God’s original design as being sinful -the only exception being in the instance of adultery. At that point, a person could divorce their adulterous spouse without being condemned. But every other type of divorce along with every humanly concocted version of marriage, be it polygamy or a homosexual union, was defined as sinful and therefore not recognized by Heaven as legitimate, let alone healthy. Polygamy has been a common practice since the days of Genesis. But has been mentioned before, just because the Bible chronicles a particular practice – that doesn’t equate to a Biblical endorsement of that practice.

Joseph Smith & the Mormons

In January of 1838, Oliver Cowdery, one of Joseph Smith’s earliest converts, wrote his brother about a teenager that had spent some time in the Smith household as a servant. Her name was Fanny Alger and Cowdery was convinced that Smith had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her, describing it as the “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his [Smith’s] and Fanny Alger’s.”

Smith didn’t deny the relationship, but refused to define it as adulterous and instead maintained it as a Biblically based example of polygamy. Still the way in which the relationship was veiled by the absence of a formal ceremony and a declaration of her being a “plural wife” only after the relationship was questioned, made it very difficult to regard the relationship as honorable, despite Smith’s attempts to justify it.

Alger would later marry Solomon Custer and raise nine children, leaving her relationship with Smith to be left open to conjecture and speculation.4

Polygamy, that being one husband with two or more wives, is still championed today by a great number of people who passionately cling to a flawed interpretation of God’s Word and will point to several well known Biblical personalities as being examples of God’s favorable disposition towards this practice. Mormons are notorious for engaging in polygamy. Their founder, Joseph Smith, had several, “plural” wives, the first of which was allegedly Fanny Alger. What makes this particular situation problematic is that Smith’s relationship with Alger appeared adulterous in light of there not having been a wedding ceremony which would allow people to recognize Smith’s relationship with Alger as being holy and legally legitimate. In addition, Smith declared Alger a “plural wife” only after the relationship came under scrutiny, hence the ease with which one could point to Smith’s spin on polygamy as being a convenient way to justify extramarital affairs (see sidebar). Still, Smith maintained his innocence and others would follow his example. In the, “Journal of Discourses,” a 26 volume collection of sermons by the early leaders of the Mormon church, Heber C. Kimball, one of the original apostles in the early Latter Day Saint Movement, said:

I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. 3

The problem with that statement is that it ignores Christ’s comments in Matthew 19 – one man, one woman for life. Some will argue that God’s design was intended as a starting point – that other combinations and variations would be considered just as holy once they became possible as a result of more people and more diversity in sexual appetites.

But that’s not an option in light of what Jesus said. By going back to the beginning, He was punctuating the fact that the only union that’s sanctioned in Heaven is the one that God created. Had God intended there to be an option for either divorce or polygamy to exist, He would’ve created, “spares” in order for that dynamic to exist.

Wives & Concubines

For the sake of clarity, it’s healthy to identify the difference between a concubine and a wife, only because some of the more dogmatic proponents of polygamy will reference a particular person as being a polygamist, when in fact he had one wife and a concubine, or perhaps several concubines.

There is a distinction between a concubine and a wife in that the wife was entitled to more in terms of inheritance and overall status. That isn’t to say that a concubine represents a Biblically endorsed substitute for marriage. It is, however, significant in that it shows that even in the midst of a flawed approach to the Divine standard for matrimony, there is still a higher regard for the spouse than there was for the woman who was simply maintained for the sake of bearing children.

The bottom line is that polygamy was introduced into the human equation by man and not by God. To insist that it’s a Divine institution on the same level as the marital relationship He put in place between Adam and Eve that was to serve as a template from that point on is to introduce a Scriptural dynamic that simply isn’t there.

The first time polygamy is mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 4. Lamech, who would later have a son named Noah, was the first man recorded to have more than one wife. Lamech is documented to be an outrageously arrogant and prideful man that boldly proclaimed his independence from God. He was a descendent of Cain and his words and actions indicate his affinity for the same kind of rebellion that inspired Cain to sin against God and kill his own brother. For polygamy to be initiated by one so blatantly opposed to the lordship of his Heavenly Father demonstrates the self serving dynamic that characterizes polygamy in general. It is a deviation from God’s original design, one that was considered serious enough that it justified Christ Himself re-establishing God’s blueprint for one husband and one wife as the only marital relationship considered to be holy.

So, the bottom line is that God’s original design for marriage is the only, “marriage” deemed holy and legitimate. Any relationship that constitutes an edited version of God’s design for Holy Matrimony is neither holy let alone healthy.

A Rapist and His Victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that if a man rapes a woman, he is to pay the father of the victim a fine and then he is to marry the woman he has raped. On the surface ,this seems terribly unfair to the woman, especially if she has no interest in being bound to this man who has violated her. But there’s more to this directive than meets the eye and when you take a moment to study the text as well as the cultural dynamics being addressed, it makes sense. The key is to look at Deuteronomy 22:25. There is a distinction in the way the victim is being described in these two scenarios. In verse 25, you have a woman who is engaged to be married who is now being forced by a rapist to be intimate with him. The verbiage is very clear that she is being forcibly compelled to do what she does not want to do. It’s especially evident in the King James Version:

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. (Dt 22:25 [KJV])

In verses 28-29,however, the victim is described differently:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (Dt 22:28 [KJV])

There isn’t the same element of, “force” in the second scenario and that is significant because the difference in wording signifies that the woman in this case was not an unwilling participant. In verse 25, the man, “forces her and lies with her.” The word, “force” in the Hebrew is “chazaq,” means to prevail and overpower your adversary. In verse 28, he’s described as “laying hold” of the woman. “Laying hold,” in the Hebrew is, “taphas” and it means to “catch” as in to arrest or seize someone. The difference may appear to be nominal, in that there is an aggressive element in both instances, but it’s a distinction nevertheless and therefore is a situation like the one addressed in Exodus 22:16 where the woman has been placed in a compromising position, but not without her consent. “Gils Exposition of the Bible” lays this out in greater detail:

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,…. That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:

and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible [http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries /gills-exposition-of-the-bible/deuteronomy-22-28.html])

You don’t see that difference in other translations in that the word, “seize” is used in verses 25 and 28-29 but once you pop the hood and look at the original Hebrew, the distinction is there and it’s that distinction which allows the directive to make more sense. As far as the way in which the pro-homosexual camp wants to use this verse to cast a shadow of cynicism over the Scriptures that denounce homosexuality and same sex marriage, their logic is again revealed as flawed in that this verse is not adding insult to injury by compelling a victim of a violent crime to marry the guilty party, rather it’s a verse that’s in place in order to discourage sex before marriage. Should two people insist on disobeying God’s law, this Scripture compels them to get married and do things correctly.

Proceed to the final installment, Part V, by clicking here…

Is Homosexuality Sinful? | Part III

/in , , , /by

Part III of an article designed to answer the question: “Is homosexuality sinful?”

Objection: The Old Testament’s objections pertaining to homosexuality were documented when the earth was still in need of being populated. That’s not the case now, so same sex marriages are permissible. Overruled: The issue isn’t the number of people on the planet, rather it’s the issue of disobeying God’s Instructions (a.k.a. sin).

Sin is against God. The number of people your rebellion affects, while that does matter, is subordinate to the fact that you’ve rebelled against your Heavenly Father. The fact that there were less people in the world when the Pentateuch was written has no bearing on the substance of the moral law that God laid down. If we were to extend the logic of this argument to its inevitable conclusion, then murder wouldn’t be as much of a problem because there are more people today than when God first said, “Thou shalt not kill.” The issue is sin and not the number of people that sin may or may not affect. A great verse to consider when you’re looking for a good example on how to process wrongdoing in general is 2 Samuel 12:13:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam 12:13)

The prophet Nathan had just confronted King David with the fact that he had committed adultery and murder. David killed a man in order to cover up the fact that he had slept with his wife. Bound up within that one scandal, you had two capital offenses (see Lev 20:10; 24:17). Yet, David doesn’t respond according to the way in which a convicted felon might agonize over the manner of justice that’s about to be handed down by the courts, or how his actions affected the surviving family members of his victim. Rather, David responds by acknowledging that his actions, while they are crimes that will be processed and punished by human institutions, they are first and foremost sins against God. However sin pollutes and contaminates an otherwise innocent and healthy situation in a physical sense, it is in the spiritual realm where sin is first registered. Look at these verses:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord. (Gen 13:13)

No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? (Gen 39:9 [Joseph explaining to Potiphar’s wife that the compromise she was encouraging him to make would be registered, not only as a sin against his master, but more importantly, against God.])

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

Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. (Lk 15:18 [The confession the Prodigal Son made to his father upon his return.])

Matthew Henry offers some great commentary on this Truth:

That it was committed against God. To him the affront is given, and he is the party wronged. It is his truth that by wilful sin we deny, his conduct that we despise, his command that we disobey, his promise that we distrust, his name that we dishonour, and it is with him that we deal deceitfully and disingenuously. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Psalm 51)

The substance of sin cannot be dismissed by suggesting that because a particular act affected only a few, that it’s no longer categorized as wrongdoing. Granted, the sins of those in Sodom are referenced throughout Scripture as being especially significant in that their acts were not only twisted, they were also blatant (see Is 3:9). And while some want to insist that God loves the sinner and hates the sin, fact is there are some who have worn out their welcome and God allows them to experience the full extent of the consequences their chosen depravity produces (see Ps 11:5; Rom 1:18-32). But the point is that regardless of the intensity of a person’s sin, it is sin and it is an offense against God. The argument that homosexuality is not an issue anymore because an abundance of human offspring is no longer a priority, leaves out the fact that homosexuality is a sin because it is first an affront to God. Whatever dynamics are produced from a human standpoint are secondary to the fact that it is God Who is offended and that is the determining factor. Avoiding sin translates to a quality life Throughout Scripture, you’ve got a formula:

Obedience to God = Blessing | Rebellion Against God = Trouble

First off, if you love God then obedience is expected (see Jn 14:21). Someone who claims to love God, yet maintains a consistent pattern of disobedience to God’s commands falls under the category described in 1 John 3:6:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)

Being obedient isn’t always easy. You see that struggle described in Romans 7 where Paul elaborates on the constant tension that exists between the obvious good represented by being obedient to God’s Leadership and the pointless mirage of seemingly logical and attractive options provided by one’s sinful nature. But while it isn’t easy, it’s more than do-able and the payoff makes the effort more than worth it. The key is to simply let Christ work in and through you:

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ…13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live…(Rom 8:9, 13)

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil 2:13)

To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me. (Col 1:29 [see also Heb 13:20-21])

However attractive or insignificant sin may appear to be, or however trivial a certain sinful behavior seems, it’s counterproductive to the success and prosperity we all long for (see Josh 1:8). So rather than trying to justify it, the smart play is to simply recognize it for what it is and avoid it altogether.

To proceed to Part IV click here…

Sanctified Violence

/in , , , /by

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided. Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded.

As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end. Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy.

Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal?

Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence. Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations. Here we want to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right. But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction. For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites. In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as…

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword. The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you. You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind. In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack.

Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be. Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words. First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35). As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures. The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow. Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared.

While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished. You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld. If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment. God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace. A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

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.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

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. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.” It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.” Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified. For further reading, refer to the links below:

COVID 19 | Q & A

/in , , /by

Below you’ll find a series of questions pertaining to COVID-19. Everything from the vaccine to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are addressed. Any word that’s in bold, in many cases, is a link that will connect you to the resource upon which that statement is based. Enjoy!

What is COVID-19? Is it something that evolved naturally or was it intentionally manufactured?
It originated in the Wuhan Lab in China and was intentionally manufactured as part of “cause of function” research that was indirectly financed by the NIH headed up by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Initially, there was an attempt to prevent any “blame” from being assigned to any one particular institution / effort just because of the devastation this has caused. You can’t afford to be reckless in accusing someone of developing a virus that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. But as it turns out, a recent report revealed that many of the authorities who were asked to conduct a probe as to the origin of COVID-19 had a conflict of interests:

As you may recall, 27 “scientists” sent a letter published in The Lancet in the early days of the pandemic claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) did not originate in a Wuhan laboratory. It turns out that 26 of these scientists had direct ties to the Chinese laboratory in question, rendering their assertions completely unreliable. (thetruedefender.com)

In addition, the molecular composition of the virus itself isn’t something that happens in nature. It has to be engineered. Among the ways that kind of intentionality surfaces is in the context of something called, “Gain of Function” research and the techniques used in that kind of science are very visible in the context of COVID-19:

Writing in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller pointed to two key pieces of evidence to support the claim, which has increasingly gained steam after long being derided as little more than speculation.

The first relates to the nature of gain-of-function research, in which microbiologists tweak a virus’ genome to alter its properties, such as making it more transmissible or more lethal.

Of the 36 possible genome pairings that can produce two arginine amino acids in a row — which results in boosting a virus’ lethality — the one most commonly used in gain-of-function research is CGG-CGG, or double CGG, wrote Quay and Muller. (nypost)

They go on to say that “CGG” is used as frequently as it is because it’s the one scientists have the most experience with and produces the required results. COVID-19 has this pairing which is the least favorite combination in the context of nature. This plus other damning information has lead both Quay and Muller to believe that the belief that the Coronavirus was manufactured is the most plausible theory. And while Dr. Fauci has vehemently denied having had anything to do with it, between 2014 and 2019 the NIH gave 3.1 billion dollars for Bat Research. Of those monies, $599,000.00 was allocated by the Ecohealth Alliance to Wuhan who went on to do “Bat Research” which some say qualifies as “Gain of Function” research. That said, one doesn’t need to do a great deal of mental calisthenics to reach the conclusion that Fauci’s fingerprint is on the Coronavirus, as are the other 27 scientists who insisted that the virus had naturally involved.
<

Is it deadly? Is it something to be afraid of?
Yes, it can be lethal. But the vast majority of those who struggle have a suppressed immune system. Consequently, it should not be perceived as a cause for panic given that 98 out of 100 will recover with no side affects.

Statistically you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck than you do COVID-19. This is based on a recent report that had the fatality rate between .5 and 1%.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover) (worldometers.info)

The chances of your dying in a car crash is .97%. Bear in mind, too, that 94% of COVID-19 deaths had contributing conditions. A study done in April of last year suggested that up to 50% of the American population had already contracted the virus and recovered from it. In addition, today a combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans. The reason our society is prone to see COVID as a sinister threat is because of the way the media has engaged in a non-stop campaign of death tolls and new cases while simultaneously remaining silent on recovery rates and effective therapeutics.

Does it justify economic shutdowns  and cancelling any kind of public event?
Economic Shutdowns are neither practical nor sustainable. In addition, the hypocrisy that’s been demonstrated in targeting “which” events need to be cancelled make it apparent that the bottom line isn’t so much about “medical science” as much as it’s about “political gain.”

First of all, even those who would argue that a shutdown is appropriate, it’s not sustainable. At some point, you have to fund research and you can’t do that without an economy to support it. An article published in April of last year confirms this with an article entitled, “COVID-19 Confirms It: Dems Don’t Understand Economics.”

Democrats seem to think government is the source of wealth, that it can create “high-paying” green jobs out of nothing, provide affordable, health care for all, and finance K-PhD educations. Yet government produces nothing. It can only redistribute what others have made. And there are limits to that practice, another constant Democrats can’t fathom.

In addition to that article underscoring the obvious need for a strong economic foundation to fund research, medicine, food and respirators, you also have this dynamic…

From Sen. Bernie Sanders demanding that a coronavirus vaccine be free for all and that “profiteering” from it cannot be tolerated, to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who said “if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy,” when he ordered the state to shut down, Democrats are demonstrating they don’t know how an economy works. This is as dangerous as it is maddening. (Issues & Insights)

So even if economic shutdowns were appropriate, they can’t be done in perpetuity. At some point, the humanitarian aspects of a strong economy have to be in place – a fact that some of the strongest advocates of masks, vaccines, social distancing and limited crowd capacity refuse to acknowledge. In addition, one can’t help but become both suspicious and cynical when the outcry against public gatherings is vocal and aggressive when the topic is Public Worship but mild when it comes to BLM Riots or Caesar’s Palace.

Are masks effective?
Masks are not effective in preventing a person from contracting the virus. Period.

In a tweet that was later published in boredpanda.com, Leora Horwitz, a doctor and director at the Center for Healthcare Innovation, insisted that typical mask that most believe to be an effective deterrent is actually a very weak if not a totally irrelevant form of protection. Reason being is that in order to protect yourself from a virus, the seal around your mouth and every other open cavity of your body has to be virtually air tight. If you are a carrier, the mask is helpful in that it can contain the dispersion of mucus when you sneeze. Other than that, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, the protection that it offers is minimal and therefore ineffective.

Why are hospitals overrun if there’s a 98% recovery rate?
Hospitals are short staffed and the majority of those who are occupying a bed in a hospital currently are either asymptomatic or have a very mild case of COVID-19.

Two reasons: First of all, you’ve already got a shortage of medical staff to service the overcrowded hospitals. Their ranks are now being reduced even more because of the way nurses are noticing some within the medical community hesitating as to the safety of the vaccines…

While at least one media outlet referred to those medical professionals who refuse to take the vaccines as “unlikely” to be hesitant because of their knowledge and medical training, several nurses interviewed by The Epoch Times said it’s their scientific training that gives them pause.

The nurse in Washington said there’s “a lot of distrust of the vaccine and the media narrative ‘safe and effective.’”

“There are a lot of credible doctors out there,” she said, “and they’re being shunned” by the medical community because they oppose the mRNA shots.

Another registered nurse, in Virginia, said she chose to give notice to her employer rather than be compelled to take the vaccine.

“This is a new type of vaccine—an mRNA vaccine that has never been used on humans before,” she told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity. “It’s different from any of the other vaccines.”

“I am not against vaccines,” she said. “I encourage people to get vaccines that have been studied for years. I don’t think I’m being hypocritical by saying I’m pro-vaccine, but not pro this vaccine.”

Like Thorpe, the nurse said COVID-19 vaccine mandates will make the shortage of health care workers much worse. (epochtimes)

So, number one, you have a shortage of medical staff. The other piece, though, is that while hospitals are overcrowded, according to a recent study, most of the patients are asymptomatic or have a very nominal case of COVID.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. (theatlantic)

So, you have two factors happening simultaneously: Hospital staff is dwindling and while the hospital population is increasing, it’s ranks are primarily people who have mild symptoms if they have symptoms at all.

Is the Vaccine Safe?
Most have taken it without any major side effects. But as of September 2021, over 12,000 people have died as a result of complications from the vaccine.

The fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been FDA approved suggests a substantial margin of safety. But more than one physician has risked their reputation and their livelihood to say that the evaluations were irresponsible and the end result is anything but conclusive. This comes from “America’s Frontline Doctors…” LOS ANGELES, CA – America’s Frontline Doctors released the following statement today in response to the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine:

“AFLDS decries the FDA’s unprecedented and grossly negligent approval of the Pfizer Covid vaccine, years before completion of their phase three trials. The vaccine was authorized for a variant of the virus that has faded from circulation. The current vaccine is known to be an ineffective and “leaky” vaccine (defined as a vaccine that produces stronger variants once in circulation) against the current variant.

“Vaccine efficacy versus the current Delta strain is inferior to safe, effective treatments the doctors of ALFDS are recommending and would never have qualified for Emergency Use Authorization.

“Pfizer unblinded their trial after a few months and gave the product to all, eliminating the placebo arm, making this trial all but useless.

“The vaccine panelists within FDA have numerous financial and other conflicts of interest, and the FDA itself receives industry funding. For example, recent FDA Commissioner Hahn just accepted a job with the financiers of Moderna. This decision also violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that requires open forums.

“This exposes the FDA as a rubber stamp for Big Pharma and the Biden administration. AFLDS is considering filing for a Temporary Restraining Order lawsuit based on the FACA violation.” (America’s Frontline Doctors)

As far as there being documented evidence of people experiencing adverse affects to the vaccine, there is a federal repository that captures that data. However, because it’s an open site, some of the information can be less than trustworthy because different people have different definitions of what constitutes an “adverse affect.” Consequently, critics are quick to criticize it as an unreliable source of information. Still, when you look at Pfizer’s Fact Sheet, that is the site they recommend you go to in order to document your situation. In addition, they provide their own site to document adverse affects. Given the fact that you can hold neither your employer, the FDA or any of the companies that are producing the vaccine accountable for any adverse affects, there’s really very little one can do to compel any kind of legal accountability. Hence, however subjective the resource(s) may be, they nevertheless are one of the few barometers available to measure the side affects of the vaccine and, as of September 3, 2012, the site has recorded over 13,000 people who have died as a result of the vaccine.

Is the Vaccine Effective?
The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the virus, it merely mitigates the symptoms.

The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the disease, nor does it eliminate the possibility of dying as a result of the virus. A recent Pfizer study revealed that after six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, there were 15 deaths in the vaccinated group and 14 in the unvaccinated group. Overall, it’s much like aspirin alleviates the nagging pain of a headache. This is why you’re still being asked to wear a mask and, in some cases, you’re seeing vaccinated people contract the virus. So, no, the vaccine is not effective, at least as far as eliminating any possibility of getting the virus. Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier has gone as far as to say that the vaccine is actually a detriment and is aiding in producing the variants that we’re having to contend with.

What is Ivermectin and Does Hydroxychloroquine Work?
Ivermectin Won the Nobel Prize in 2015 and it, along with Hydroxychloroquine, are proven medications that help a person recover from COVID-19.

Ivermectin was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2015 for the way it was refactored in a way that helped human beings battle parasitic diseases. Rolling Stone published an article that suggested hospitals were being overrun by individuals who were taking the drug and suffering severe consequences. The story was later retracted, but it nevertheless did what it was intended to do, as far as convincing public opinion that any kind of therapeutic is safe let alone effective. Fact is, there have been a number of studies and several compelling testimonies from doctors and patients both who’ve experienced the efficacy of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. To minimize them let alone demonize or restrict those who use them as therapeutics is neither responsible let alone healthy. Pfizer and Big Pharma are currently working on a pill to be taken as a preventive measure against COVID. Many of its active ingredients are found in… Ivermectin.

Does President Biden have the authority to mandate vaccines?
No. He cannot mandate a vaccine. The fact that he probably knew that before he addressed the nation begs the question why he would go ahead and say such a thing.

Multiple states are pushing back on what President Biden wants to present as strong leadership in the face of a crisis. The problem is, his administration admitted months ago that the Federal government didn’t have the authority to mandate vaccines let alone masks.

In December of 2020, Biden said that vaccine mandates should not be mandatory. This despite that now some of the same people are insisting that the President is within his jurisdiction, thus mortgaging their credibility along with his. But that was before Afghanistan, the Keystone Pipeline, unhindered illegal immigration and an insane level of spending that inspires a great deal of doubt as to the character and the ability of President Biden to lead, let alone, think. But most are rightfully recognizing it as an unconstitutional effort to mandate a choice that should be left up to the individual.

Jonathan W. Emord is a constitutional law attorney and author of The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present (2021). He recently wrote a piece in townhall.com that documented several of the legal pillars that President Biden is attempting to ignore that make his mandate bogus.

Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment.

Federal and non-federal employees who have natural immunity from prior infection may well sue under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, arguing that there is no rational basis for them to be coerced into vaccination or weekly testing because they already have a fulsome immunity, equal to or greater than the vaccinated.  

Moreover, they cannot carry the virus to transmit to others.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. 

UnderJacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht v. King (1922), the authority to compel vaccination is a police power reserved to the states.  There is no comparable power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, and none that permits the Executive Branch to compel employers to coerce employees into vaccination or weekly testing as a condition of employment.

Separation of Powers Doctrine.  

The President’s vaccine mandate exceeds the power of the Executive under the Constitution.  It invades the exclusive law-making province of the Congress of the United States.  Thus, it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  His mandate is sweeping, not only affecting federal government employees but all companies that employ 100 or more, and all employees of those companies.  It is unprecedented.  For the first time, a President has used executive power to impose a national mandate requiring medical treatment and testing. 

He goes into more detail and the article is a good read. The bottom line is that President Biden had to know before he made his pronouncement that his legal footing was non-existent. The fact that didn’t stop in makes the final question all the more significant…

Is there anyone who benefits from keeping this virus “alive?”
It is a Political and Cultural weapon being used as part of the Liberal “Mickey Hood” approach to manipulating public opinion.

COVID-19 allowed for a more prolific use of Absentee Ballots and facilitated the self-inflicted destruction of our nation’s economy – a gesture that we’re now realizing had little to no effect  It has politicized medicine and enhanced the size of our population that knows it makes more money staying at home and collecting a government subsidy than it does applying for a job. In short, it’s the party that stands to gain the most by keeping COVID-19 a crisis in the mind of the everyday citizen because of the way it can be used to distract and manipulate the consciousness of a free people. I won’t tell you which party, just do the math. The previously cited article by Jonathan Emord offers this perspective in terms of the current, “emergency…”

  • First, most affected by the mandate are either in a low-risk category (are young and healthy workers) or have had the virus and, thus, have a fulsome immunity.
  • Second, there are many who pose no risk of transmission because they work remotely from home.  Indeed, remote work is an accommodation employers could provide in many instances and thereby avoid the very risks the mandate is supposed to guard against.
  • Third, there are far fewer deaths presently than at the peak of the pandemic in December 2020. Infections appear to be plateauing, the pandemic waning.
  • Fourth, the government misrepresents the extent of actual immunity in the overall population (the addition of those vaccinated and those who have natural immunity).  Indeed, the Biden Administration won’t acknowledge natural immunity as a factor.  Combined vaccine and natural immunity yield a staggering immune population, perhaps 75 to 85% of all Americans.
  • Fifth, no serious investment or promotion of numerous very effective therapeutics has been made that could reduce help hospitalizations and hasten recovery, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Not only is it time to get back to work, it’s time to get back who and what we are as a nation. We are no longer restricted to a lone congregation of health “experts” when it comes to the way we perceive COVID-19 – what it is, who’s responsible and how we should react.

It’s time to get back to work!

Do The Math

/in , /by

Given the way in which the number of new cases and the ever increasing death toll of the Coronavirus are being constantly promoted, it becomes very easy to believe that the only way in which we’ll ever completely beat this thing is to hide our faces and close our doors. The problem, however, is that there’s other credible authorities weighing in on this approach with a completely different perspective – and they’ve got both the credentials the studies to prove their point.

First and foremost, we are the only country in the West who are not opening up their schools in the Fall. Dr Scott Atlas is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy. He had this to say…

“You either believe in the science or you say you believe in the science and act contrary to science. The science says — and this is data from Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, the U.K., Australia, Canada, Ireland, everywhere in the world, Germany, everywhere in the western world has shown that children do not transmit significantly to adults, even their own parents, and that teachers are not at higher risk of getting a disease like this disease from children. You either believe the science or not. You can’t insist you believe in the science and then act contrary to science. And, by the way, like I said, we are the only country not opening schools. This is absurd” (to read more about this, click here)

As far as the numbers of new cases, this all stems from the surge in tests that are being done. While that may sound like a logical reason to be concerned, bear in mind that in Florida the number of testing errors ranges from countless testing sites dubiously reporting 100% positive cases as well as scenarios where what was originally reported as a 98% was actually 9.4%. If that sounds suspicious, it should.

Finally, however you want to “lean,” in terms of caution as opposed to fear, the one thing that you should keep in mind is that you have a greater chance of dying in a car wreck than you do from COVID-19. This is based on a recent report that had the fatality between .5 and 1%.

The chances of your dying in a car crash is .97%.

Pause for a moment.

Some have accused those who would see life return to normal as being guilty of a disposition that would, “...trade the elderly for the economy.” If that logic were sound and we would limit any activity that poses a comparable amount of risk, then we could just as easily say that anytime we’re getting into a car with our family we are sacrificing the lives or our children for a quick mode of transportation.

There is a nonsensical approach being deployed when it comes to COVID-19 and several examples of corruption in the way statistics are being calculated.

Do the math…

American Concrete

/in , , /by

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1

Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage. The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

  • the context of that comment
  • the character of the person speaking
  • the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason.

While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on.

His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation.

Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

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…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

Jefferson’s Audience

In addition to considering the background of Thomas Jefferson and his philosophical starting point when it came to the issue of religious liberty, one also needs to look at the society that Jefferson was addressing in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in addition to proclaiming America’s resolve to separate itself from the authority of the crown, it also created a mandate for all states to create their own constitution. While many of the early settlers had left Old World in order to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, not everyone was dissatisfied with the Anglican Church. As a result, while the fabric of America’s religious culture was predominantly Protestant, it was nevertheless interwoven with a number of different denominations.

The Church of England was predominant in Virginia, in New England you had a blend of Congregationalists (an evolution of the original Puritans), Presbyterians and Quakers with a small percentage of other denominations scattered throughout the Northeast.

It’s imperative to realize that between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of the population attended churches which were being built at a headlong pace. When Thomas Jefferson became Vice President in 1797, the Second Great Awakening began and an abundance of revival meetings occurred throughout the country in a sustained pattern that would continue to the Civil War. So common was this anomaly that it was referred to as “the great absorbing theme of American life.”4 And part of what made the evangelical movement so potent was the way in which it was perceived as the best way in which to promote and preserve republican government.

Nineteenth century evangelical literature abounds with statements that could have been inspired by the religion section of Washington’s Farewell Address or copied from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: “the religion of the Gospel is the rock on which civil liberty rests”; “civil liberty has ever been in proportion to the prevalence of pure Christianity”; “genuine Religion with all its moral influences, and all its awful sanctions, is the chief, if not the only security we can have, for the preservation of our free institutions”; “the doctrines of Protestant Christianity are the sure, nay, the only bulwark of civil freedom”; “Christianity is the conservator of all that is dear in civil liberty and human happiness.”5.

But while the message of preachers was being embraced as something that promoted the nation’s approach to liberty as well as the key to one’s eternal salvation, it didn’t resolve the tension that existed in many states, as far as the way certain state constitutions made religion – specifically the patronization of a specific denomination – compulsory.

In 1724, in the state of Connecticut, if you were a member of the Anglican church, you were required by law to pay a percentage of your income to the local Congregationalist church under penalty of imprisonment or seizure of goods.6 Up until 1818, the Congregational church was the established church of Connecticut which translated to a number of legislative tactics deployed for the expressed purpose of discouraging and harassing members of any “dissenting” denomination.7

In the year 1801, the Baptist churches that comprised the Danbury Baptist Association resolved to approach the newly elected President for the sake of soliciting from him a statement that would reinforce and further promote the idea of disestablishment – the elimination of government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities.8

Jefferson’s reply would be reprinted in publications across the nation.9 The effect of Jefferson’s letter is subjective in that it would be several years before Connecticut’s religious tone would be altered to the point where its constitution would be stripped of any legislative power to promote one denomination over another. Other states would follow suit over time, but the bottom lines is that in the early years of the nineteenth century, “religious freedom” wasn’t so much about discouraging public religious expressions as much as it was about eliminating that dynamic where you were legally obligated to attend and support a specific church.

It’s wise to pause for a moment and ponder the mindset of those who were reading Jefferson’s letter in 1802. While our currency today states that we trust in God, statistics reveal a collective disposition that is largely cynical of traditional Christianity.10 In a 2013 article written by Steve McSwain entitled “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore,” he cites some compelling stats that proclaim upwards of 80% of Americans are finding “more fulfilling things to do on the weekend” besides going to church.11 That’s not to say that some of these same people aren’t listed on the membership role of a local fellowship, but their commitment to God is casual at best.

This is an important dynamic to consider in that, to a nineteenth century citizen of the US, given the religious tenor of the nation as a whole, removing any and all references to Christ from the public arena was not something to be desired let alone considered. Christianity was regarded as both the foundation as well as the fuel for a moral society which, in turn, promoted a healthy republic.

Jefferson demonstrated that himself in his personal life as well as his public policies.12 “The Christian religion,” he wrote in 1801, when “brought to the original and simplicity of its benevolent institutor (Jesus Christ), is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.”13 This is not the sentiment of a man determined to remove faith based gestures from the public arena. And while it wasn’t in Jefferson’s mind to eliminate the concrete of Christianity from America’s foundation, neither was it the ambition of the people he governed or the people who governed alongside him.

Jefferson’s Peers

To state that Jefferson’s was not the only signature on the Declaration of Independence nor was he the only voice that shaped our Constitution (Jefferson was in France when our Constitution was written, but he was nevertheless influential through his correspondence) is to rehearse the obvious. Yet, when you consider the weight given to a single phrase made in a letter that, while politically strategic, had no legislative power, it’s difficult not to feel as though Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists is the only piece of evidence being admitted into the courtroom.

When you consider the other personalities and their respective statements along with their voting record, the resulting dynamic isn’t so much something that isolates Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Association as unique as much as it brings into focus what he truly intended.

The First Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were the legislative bodies that crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution respectively. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. With no more than five exceptions, the members of the Constitutional Convention were all orthodox members of an established Christian denomination.14  The signatures on the Declaration of Independence boasts a similar enumeration of men who vocally volunteered their commitment to Christ with little hesitation. Following the death of Richard Henry Lee (President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence), his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from patriots (e.g., George Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc.), were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:

“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation.”15

The reason the American experiment succeeded is because it was based on the Absolutes in Scripture that pertained to the way in which man was created to think and live as a free enterprise.

Political theory and personal preferences can be debated to the point where legislative conclusions are determined more so by charisma and compelling rhetoric than the substance of the truths being considered. Our Founding Fathers knew that and for that reason chose to bring their collective pursuit of liberty beneath the umbrella of Biblical Truth.

Within their ranks you had different degrees of orthodoxy as well as a variety of individual perspectives on issues such as slavery and those that were fit for positions of political leadership. But they all believed that man was “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights” and it was that consensus that allowed them the opportunity to come together as a unified legislative body and proclaim the freedom of those they represented to King George and to the world.

In Conclusion

Pop Quiz…

Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?

Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16

Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?

Answer: Leviticus 25:10

Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson17

Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill? Answer:

Moses18

Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?

Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])

: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

a) Billy Graham
b) George Washington
c) George W. Bush
d) Charles Spurgeon

Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)

Question #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?

Answer: The third verse of our national anthem:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”19

“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.

Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust. The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.

The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II.

Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting. The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually. If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur.

Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.

Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.

1. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p92
2. “John F. Kennedy: Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Peace Winners of the Western Hemisphere”, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8623, accessed November 2, 2015
3. “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”, John Meacham, Random House, New York, NY, 2012, p471
4. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p99
5. Ibid, p109
6. “Connecticut in Transition, 1775-1818”, Richard Joseph Purcell, American Historical Association, 1918, p47
7. Among the laws that the Congregational Church used to make life difficult for dissenters was a “certificate law,” that compelled you to verify your church attendance and the regularity of your tithe via a certificate. Obtaining this certificate could be challenging in that, at one point during the life of this law, the certificate had to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace. Since many of the the civil officers in place were Congregationalists, getting their signature was not accomplished without having to endure a significant amount of harassment and discouragement. For more reading on this subject, refer to “The Connecticut State Constitution”, Wesley W. Horton, Oxford University Press, 2012, p10
8. In an October 7, 1801, letter to then-president Jefferson, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists expressed concerns that the Congregationalist-dominated establishment / government in Connecticut might successfully stifle dissenting sects – theirs in particular. The letter carried the Danbury Baptists’ plea for Jefferson’s assistance, or at least the lending of Jefferson’s presidential stature, to thwart establishment-driven, government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities. “Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History”, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana, 2008, p176
9. “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State”, New York University Press, NY, 2002, p47 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=aSg20UE2DHgC&pg=GBS.PT42.w.1.0.45.0.1, accessed Nov 17, 2015)
10. Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. “Gallup”, “Three in Four Still See the Bible as the Word of God”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx, accessed November 7, 2015
11. “Huffington Post”, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore”, Steve McSwain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html, accessed November 7, 2015
12. Jefferson regularly attended church services in the hall of the House of Representatives. In addition, he allowed church services to be held in several federal buildings throughout the capitol on Sundays. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states “It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.” “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p91
13. Ibid, p84
14. “Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution”, M.E. Bradford, 1994, University Press of Kansas, p xvi (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/dp/0700606572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449433424&sr=1-1#reader_0700606572) see also http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm)
15. “Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution & Religion”, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, Aldedo, TX, 2010, 152
16. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p53
17. Ibid, p91
18. “One Nation Under God”, Eugene F. Hemrick, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 2001, p49
19. “A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics”, Thomas L. Kranawitter, David C. Palm, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford, UK, 2006, p39

President Trump: Convicted Felon or Political Target

/in , /by

Imagine buying a printer and documenting it as a business expense.

Perfectly legal.

But pretend for a moment that instead of buying a printer, you bought heroin. Now, not only are you breaking the law by purchasing illegal drugs, but you’re also committing a crime in the way you reported it as “something for the office.”

If instead of buying a printer, you bought an ice cream cone, you’ve got a “falsified business expense,” but that’s not necessarily a problem. What makes it criminal is the crime being concealed by documenting the expense as something legitimate.

If someone is going to accuse you of committing a felony because of a falsified business expense, they have to prove to the jury that you’re guilty of committing a crime that was funded by the money you reported as a legal transaction. In the case of our example, the purchase of heroin.

But if you bought ice cream, that’s not illegal and however you accounted for it is not a felony and…

…they don’t have a case.

These are the 34 “felonies” that President Trump was charged with:

 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 2/14/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 2/14/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 2/14/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 2/14/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 3/16/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907 3/17/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 3/17/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 4/13/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 5/22/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 5/22/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 5/23/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 6/16/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 6/19/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 6/19/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 6/9/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 6/19/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 7/11/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 7/11/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 7/11/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 8/1/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 8/1/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 8/1/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 9/11/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 9/11/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 9/12/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 10/18/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 10/18/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 10/18/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 11/20/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 11/20/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 11/21/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump 12/1/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 12/1/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 12/1/17

These were all identified by the prosecution as falsified business records.

34 falsified business records, 34 felonies.

But remember, in order for a falsified business record to quality as a felony, it has to be proven that the money was intentionally categorized to conceal the fact that the law had been broken.

An excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors’ bill of particulars in the Donald Trump hush-money case referenced in the “Old, unused, and ‘twisty’ — meet the obscure NY election-conspiracy law that just might get Trump convicted” article printed in the Business Insider, April 27, 2024.

But what was the crime?

You can’t tell by looking at the business records, apart from the name, “Michael Cohen.”

In 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, cut a check to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her discretion when it came to her relationship to Donald Trump, given its sordid characteristics that occurred in 2006. That same check was later categorized as an illegal contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign and Cohen wound up serving three years in prison.1

Later, however, it was alleged that Trump tried to reimburse Cohen for the money paid out to Daniels and used a series of falsified business records in order to conceal the true nature of the payment made to the former porn star. In doing so, at least one of three crimes were committed (see sidebar):2

  • Violation of State Election Law
  • Tax Fraud
  • Federal Election Law

But you can’t simply list 34 transactions and call them 34 felonies. You have to prove that every one of those line items was intentionally mis-categorized in order to conceal a violation of either State Election Law, New York Tax Law, or Federal Election Law.

It looks like this:

But at each stage of the prosecution’s case, you have some toxic flaws that neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the prosecuting attorney’s seemed willing to acknowledge.

Let’s take a look…

#1 Hush Money – the money paid to Stormy Daniels, according to the prosecution, should’ve been reported to the FEC as a campaign expenditure. It was intentionally documented incorrectly in order to cover up either a violation of Federal Election Law (2), State Election Law (3), or an instance of Tax Fraud (4).

Here’s the problem…

The money paid to Stormy Daniels DID NOT have to be reported to the FEC as a campaign expenditure. However he documented it, the prosecution is wrong in insisting that the money should’ve been reported to the FEC.

Washington Examiner reporter, Byron York, explains:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened…[Bragg’s] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”

If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” … Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.3

The Forbidden Testimony of Bradley Smith

Bradley Smith’s testimony would’ve severely undermined the prosecution’s case. He tweeted some of what he would’ve said had Judge Merchan allowed him to take the stand and elaborate on how Campaign Law actually applied to President Trump’s situation…

Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia—a pretty smart guy, even you hate him—once said “this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out…

Someone has to bring that knowledge to the jury. That—not the law—was my intended testimony. For example, part of the state’s case is that they wrongly reported what they knew to be a campaign expenditure in order to hide the payment until after the election. Cohen even testified they just wanted to get past the election…

So, we were going to go over the reporting schedules, showing that even if they thought it was a campaign expenditure to be reported, an expenditure made on October 27 (when $$ sent to Daniels atty) would not, under law, be reported until Dec. 8, a full 30 days after election. But while judge wouldn’t let me testify on meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen! (What an Expert Witness for Trump’s Defense Would Have Told Jurors If He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge)

Everything about the prosecution’s case requires the money paid to Stormy Daniels by categorized as illegal in the context of Election Law. If the priority is a fair trial, it only makes sense that you would seek out the clarity provided by someone who can speak with authority as to whether or not Trump did, in fact, break the law from the standpoint of the FEC.

Bradley Smith is that authority and Bradley Smith was forbidden by Judge Merchan to provide that clarity.

Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Since the 1990s, Turley has been a legal analyst for several major news networks and is currently a legal analyst with Fox News. He said this about the prosecution’s closing argument made by Joshua Steinglass:

Steinglass just said that it is a fact that these were campaign violations. Nothing from the judge and nothing for the defense. This jury has now been told dozens of times that the payments were campaign violations and the Judge is letting that false claim stand uncontradicted…He literally said that Trump lied in denying that these were campaign contributions because they were in fact such violations. Merchan is treating this all as argument. However, Steinglass is making a statement of law that is contradicted by a wide variety of experts.4

Among the “wide variety of experts” that Turley is referring to is Bradley Smith, whose testimony would’ve prevented Steinglass from invoking the discredited assumption that Trump had violated Election Law as an established fact (see “What an Expert Witness For Trump’s’ Defense Would Have Told Jurors if He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge” sidebar).

It’s as though the court wasn’t really looking for the truth as much as it was looking for an excuse to find Trump guilty.

#2 Federal Election Law – The prosecution insisted that Trump’s payment to Stormy Daniels violated Federal Election Law.

Here’s the problem…

The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021.

 

Statute of Limitations…

The crimes Trump was convicted of date back more than five years, but they withstood an initial court challenge because of a pandemic-era extension.Trump was indicted on March 30, 2023, more than six years after the earliest charge in the indictment, which dates to Feb. 14, 2017. That’s beyond the five years typically allowed by the statute of limitations, but there’s a catch: Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo extended the time limit to file charges in all criminal cases when courts were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the case in its early stages based on the statute of limitations, but Merchan rejected the argument. In a pretrial decision, the judge said the pandemic extension stretched out the deadline for the prosecution by one year and 47 days.

“In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within six years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed,” Merchan wrote.

Trump was charged within days of the potential deadline. The extension “brought the conduct described in the indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit,” Merchan wrote. (USA Today)

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) had closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election.

The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.5

The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021. Yet, the State of New York decided to ignore that verdict and attempted to charge him with the same crime in 2024.

Another weakness in the prosecution’s case is the fact that President Trump’s alleged violation happened six years ago – a full year beyond the state’s statute of limitations. While a provision was made to extend that timeframe, given the way courts were disrupted by COVID-19, the fact that under any other circumstance, the prosecution’s case would never have made it to trial.

Bear in mind that a falsified business record is a misdemeanor. In order for it to be classified as a felony, the prosecution had to allege that the money was intentionally misrepresented in order to conceal another crime. But not only did that misdemeanor have to be linked to another crime in order for it to qualify as a felony, it had to be asserted as a felony in order for an exception to the statute of limitations to apply.

#3 State Election Law – According to Judge Merchan, New York State Election Law Section 17-152 was violated.

Here’s the problem…

State courts have no jurisdiction in cases such as this as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Again, in order for the 34 counts of falsified business records to resonate as felonies, it has to be proven that they were falsely documented in order to conceal another crime. The prosecution asserted that one of the three possible crimes was a violation of New York State Law Section 17-152  which refers to a “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” It goes on to say that, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”6

At one point, Judge Merchan elaborated by saying, “Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”7

The problem, however, is that the state has no jurisdiction when it comes to Federal elections. In other words, if the FEC declares that the money paid by President Trump to Michael Cohen was not in violation of the law, that ruling supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.8

Judge Merchan and the prosecution were completely wrong in making a violation of State Election Law as part of the trial because Federal Law renders any attempt on the part of the state to override a Federal ruling a moot point.

#4 Tax Fraud – Prosecution accused President Trump of tax fraud when he disguised payments to Michael Cohen.

Here’s the problem…

The DA introduced no evidence to support the claim and the court didn’t rule on the issue.

In his legal review, Professor Gregory Germain elaborated on the issue of tax fraud as presented by the prosecution:

Early in the case, the District Attorney suggested that Trump might have been disguising the payments to commit tax fraud. But the DA introduced no evidence to support that claim. Trump asked Judge Merchan to prevent the District Attorney from arguing the tax fraud point. The District Attorney argued that falsifying the payment as income to Cohen rather than a reimbursement was a “tax law violation,” but Trump pointed out that there is no evidence that anyone received a tax benefit from the characterization. The court did not rule on the issue.9

So, however “tax fraud” might’ve been documented in the prosecution’s “Bill of Particulars,” it was never proven let alone discussed.

#5 Convicted Felon – Trump’s guilt was evaluated according to his having effected the election according to “unlawful means.”

Here’s the problem…

Judge Merchan illegally told the jury they didn’t have to unanimous which also violated President Trump’s rights.

N.Y. Election Law § 17-152 states, “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” This crime has two elements:

  • To be guilty, a jury must find the accused: (1) conspired to affect an election; and (2) committed another act by “unlawful means” in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  • A jury must agree unanimously on the acts constituting elements of a crime. (See U.S. v. Gotti, 451 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The jury must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts.”); U.S. v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 224 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The jury must find that the prosecution proved each one of those two … specifically alleged predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt.”).)10

A jury can’t declare someone to be guilty without being unanimous. Despite that being a known precedent, Judge Merchan told jurors, in his verbal instructions to the jury, “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.11”

While it may sound like the Judge is insisting on a consensus, he simultaneously makes it clear that the jury doesn’t have to be unanimous in which of the three possible manifestations of “unlawful means” were actually committed.  Not only is that a gross violation of legal precedent, it’s also a violation of President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right which says that all those accused of a crime have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”12

Juan Merchan

However unbiased Juan Merchan may claim to be, his adversarial perspective on President Trump and the Republican party are obvious given his financial contributions as well as the way in which his daughter stood to gain financially had President Trump lost the election.This is more than just an awkward coincidence. This is a violation of New York State Law pertaining to how political activity and family associations can not be allowed to impact the necessary impartiality that has to characterize the judgement of the one sitting on the bench.

  • Judge Merchan made financial contributions to Joe Biden’s Presidential Campaign and a Political Action Committee called “Stop Republicans.”14
  • Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is the founder and president of a political consulting company called Authentic Campaigns, which provides political services for prominent Democratic Party clients. In a letter from Congress to Ms. Merchan, the Committee on on the Judiciary said, “Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump’s case despite your work on behalf of President Trump’s political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction.15

At every level of this trial, you have a corrupted manipulation of the law…

  • The Hush Money paid to Stormy Daniels did not have to be filed as a campaign expenditure
  • There was no violation of Federal Election Law.
  • The State has no jurisdiction over Federal Elections.
  • There was no evidence of Tax Fraud
  • Jury didn’t have to be unanimous on what crime was committed

In addition…

  • The jury pool is coming from a county that consists of 663,000 registered Democrats as opposed to 66,000 Republicans.13
  • A key witness for the defense was not allowed to testify
  • Prosecution’s star witness confessed to lying under oath
  • Given Merchan’s political activity as well as his daughter being formally questioned by Congress as to how she stands to benefit financially by Trump’s indictment and defeat (see sidebar), his bias makes his refusal to recuse himself a potential violation of New York State Law standards for recusal which state that judges may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity.”16 The rules further state, “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”17

What Was Donald Trump’s Crime? Liberals have a hard time in saying what Trump was guilty of.

Finally, Michael Colangelo was President Joe Biden’s third-highest-ranking Department of Justice official. He quit to join the Manhattan office investigating Donald Trump on November 18, 2022 – only three days after Trump announced his 2024 run and the same day Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith, and White House attorneys met for eight-hours with Nathan Wade. Colangelo’s association with the case and his nonsensical departure from his prestigious position makes it all the more logical to assume that the Biden White House was instrumental in ensuring that the case against President Trump had the look and feel of something legitimate.

It’s especially suspicious, given the way that Alvin Bragg was apparently reluctant to prosecute President Trump up until Colangelo joining the effort. He was so instrumental in building the case, he actually presented the opening arguments.18

Depending on the media you consume, it’s easy to believe that President Trump was found guilty on 34 felony convictions including what you see above. The problem with the headlines is that they rarely communicate the bottom lines that define the legal substance of, not just the allegations, but even the court proceedings that handed down a guilty verdict.

According to legal experts, Merchan’s standards for a conviction are abnormal. Not only were his instructions vague and illegal, but the prosecution never really made its point. Turley, who was been inside the courtroom, writes. “The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime.”19

Alan Dershowitz was a Democrat up until September of 2024. Prior to that, he supported Hillary Clinton and represented several high profile clients in their legal struggles.

He had a chance to be in the courtroom when Judge Merchan cleared everyone out in order to rebuke Robert Costello. From the perspective of Dershowitz, it was more than inappropriate…

Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.

The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.

Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.

The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.

But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.

I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.20

He goes on to observe how, because the trial wasn’t televised, the only perspective on what happened inside the courtroom was going to be coming from media types, many of who were just as biased as Judge Merchan.

He concludes his observations with a fitting statement that captures everything that falls into the category of the way in which President Trump was not found guilty as a convicted felon as much as he was put on trial as a political target…

“The American public is the loser.”21

 

 

1. “Stormy Daniels – Donald Trump Scandal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal, accessed January 31, 2025
2. The excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors “Bill of Particulars” references four crimes. However, only three were referenced by Judge Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The fourth one is State Penal Law 175.05 and refers to falsifying business records and is classified as a misdemeanor. It may be that this was considered both obvious and redundant and for that reason, wasn’t referenced by Judge Merchan.
3. “When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense”, Washington Examiner, Byron York, May 6, 2024, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2993414/when-the-judge-gags-a-key-witness-for-trumps-defense/, accessed February 22, 2025
3. “Why Is the Judge in Trump’s New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness?”, “Townhall”, Guy Benson, 5/8/2024, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/08/why-is-the-judge-in-trumps-new-york-trump-trial-muzzling-a-witness-for-the-defense-n2638747, accessed February 3, 2024
4. Jonathan Turley, https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795582312073101372, accessed February 1, 2025
5. “FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments”, Jordan Williams, 05/06/21, “The Hill”, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/, accessed February 4, 2025
6. “The New York State Senate”, “SECTION 17-152 | Conspiracy to promote or prevent election”, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152, accessed February 22, 2025
7. “What is the New York election law at the center of Trump’s hush money trial?”, ABC News, Ivan Pereira and Peter Charalambous, May 30, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995, accessed February 22, 2025
8. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, United States Code, §30143. State laws affected, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30143&num=0&edition=prelim, accessed February 22, 2025
9. Syracuse University, College of Law, “Professor Gregory Germain writes: The Most Important Part of Trump’s Hush Money Case begins Next Week”, Professor Gregory Germain, May 22, 2024, https://law.syracuse.edu/news/professor-gregory-germain-writes-the-most-important-part-of-trumps-hush-money-case-begins-next-week/, accessed February 22, 2025
10. America First Legal, “Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution of President Trump Jury Unanimity”, https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/01181702/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
11. New York State Unified Court System, “Post Summation Instructions”, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
12. Constitution Annotated, Sixth Amendment, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/, accessed February 22, 2025
13. “Election by County”, “New York State Board of Elections”, https://elections.ny.gov/enrollment-county, accessed February 1, 2025
14.Federal Election Contribution, Individual Contributions, https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=juan+merchan&contributor_occupation=judge&two_year_transaction_period=2020, accessed February 22, 2025
15. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, “Letter to Ms. Lauren Merchan”, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-08-01%20JDJ%20to%20L.%20Merchan%20re%20Authentic%20Campaigns.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
16. Cornell Law School, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 100.5 – A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-100.5, accessed February 25, 2025
17. Casetext, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 100.2”, https://casetext.com/regulation/new-york-codes-rules-and-regulations/title-22-judiciary/subtitle-a-judicial-administration/chapter-i-standards-and-administrative-policies/subchapter-c-rules-of-the-chief-administrator-of-the-courts/part-100-judicial-conduct/section-1002-a-judge-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-the-judges-activities, accessed February 22, 2025
18. Congress.gov, “Biden’s #3 Man at DOJ Resigned to Join Alvin Bragg’s‘Get Trump’Team on November 18,2022”, Bradley Jaye, JUne 12, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117426/documents/HHRG-118-JU00-20240613-SD012-U12.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
19. Jonathan Turley, “The Closing: Trump’s Final Argument Must Bring Clarity to the Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom”, Jonathan Turley, May 28, 2024,
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/, accessed February 22, 2025
20. New York Post, “I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me”, Alan Dershowitz, May 21, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/, accessed February 22, 2025
21. Ibid

See also…

Judge limits scope of testimony from Trump’s planned expert witness

Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution Against President Trump

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV

/0 Comments/in , /by

I) Intro –  A Conflict of Visions

“A Conflict of Visions” is a book by Dr Thomas Sowell. In it, he distills the various political philosophies and worldviews into one of two “visions…”

The Constrained Vision…
“…sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings.”
“For the amelioration (improvement) of these evils and the promotion of progress, they rely on the systemic characteristics of certain social processes such as moral traditions, the marketplace, or families.”1

 

The Unconstrained Vision…
When Rousseau said that ‘man is born free’ but ‘is everywhere in chains,’ he expressed the essence of the unconstrained vision, in which the fundamental problem is not nature or man but institutions.”22

Sowell is an Economist. He is not a theologian nor does he attempt to position one “vision” over the other in his book. Rather, it’s a dispassionate overview of the two visions and how they capture much of the angst and tension that exists in today’s cultural and political arenas because of the way The Constrained Vision sees life as something that is hard by nature and requires individual resolve and moral courage to succeed… …and not government. The Unconstrained Vision, however, sees life as a place where good things happen automatically and the only barrier to individual and corporate utopia are institutions.

By implementing different laws or instituting different systemic paradigms, suddenly life becomes better. This is what we’re looking at as a society: Two approaches that are defined exclusively by what it is that makes the difference in terms of prosperity and fulfillment both from an individual and a national perspective.

The Constrained Version says that you look to morality, industry and healthy family structures.

The Unconstrained Version says that you depend on institutions and legislative systems for your happiness and satisfaction.

While the practical advantages of the Constrained Version can be validated using objective economic realities, there’s more to this discussion than what can be calculated on an Excel spreadsheet.

While Sowell makes no mention of the spiritual realities inherent in both Versions, because The Constrained Version incorporates morality into its perspective, the definition of what is moral has to be addressed and that will be determined by one’s view on Moral Absolutes. And it’s because the Unconstrained Version doesn’t acknowledge one’s morality as a contributing factor to your economic success, either Moral Absolutes don’t matter or they don’t exist.

Either way, there’s a perspective that goes beyond dollar signs and spills over into personal convictions pertaining to Who it is that makes the rules. It’s here that one’s definition of God becomes the defining issue and this is why we need to be talking about, not just Economics, but the Politics and the Theology those Politics are based on that allow those economies to exist in the first place.

In this series, we’ve looked at how God is intimately engaged in Politics and He expects us to be aware and involved (Dan 2:21; 1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2). We also discussed how the best candidate for office is the one who’s platform is most consistent with the foundation laid by our Founding Fathers who conceived a form of government based on Biblical Absolutes.

In Part II, we looked at the importance of being wise in the way you process what you hear and what you see in the media.

In Part III we looked at two of the five tactics that are often used by people who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

Today we conclude our series by looking at the last three of the five tactics referenced in Part III and looking at the importance of evaluating a tree according to its fruit more so than its appearance. Here we go!

II) The Progressive Pentagon (Part II)

They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.

But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt…10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”

11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses… (Ex 3:11; 4:10-14 [see also Matt 7:21-22])

When you’re on the bench, you can’t be expected to be putting points on the board because you’re not on the field. It’s a reasonable sounding excuse for the person who’s looking to avoid having to function and perform. However you may be inclined to say: “I’m not, I don’t, I can’t and I won’t” remember, you are, you do, you can and you will…because He does, He can, He will and He is.

An unwilling mind will take up with a sorry excuse rather than none. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Exodus 4)3

They spend more time trying to sound honest rather than actually telling the truth.

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

All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the Lord. Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plans. (Prov 16:2-3)

The judgment of God concerning us, we are sure, is according to truth: He weighs the spirits in a just and unerring balance, knows what is in us, and passes a judgment upon us accordingly, writing Tekel (TEE-cale [to weigh]) upon that which passed our scale with approbation—weighed in the balance and found wanting; and by his judgment we must stand or fall. He not only sees men’s ways but tries their spirits, and we are as our spirits are… (Matthew Henry Commentary on Proverbs 16:2-3)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:21-22) You can’t drown out the crash of a bad decision with the sound of a good intention.
I’m not that bad…

 

The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Gen 3:12) “He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.” Benjamin Franklin
It’s not my fault…

 

Don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Look, we didn’t know.” For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve. (Prov 24:12 [NLT])

Proverbs 28:13 “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”

Recap… An easy way to remember the five tactics that we’ve looked at is by using the acrostic, “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.

All of this can be boiled down to one central Truth and that’s the fact that you can know a tree by its fruit…

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. (Matt 12:33)

However a person looks on paper or in person, however they speak – while all of that is something to be considered, Christ makes it clear that in the end, it’s a person’s actions that reveal their true colors (see Matt 15:18-19). III) Real World Examples Attempting to distract from a person’s actions by using one of the aforementioned tactics so as to better justify what amounts to a bogus mindset is a practice frequently used and is hard to miss once you know what to look for.

A) Illegal Immigration

Prager University recently published a video that details our nation’s immigration policies and describes them as generous and fair (see QR code to the right). There are those, however, who insist that America is a racist enterprise and any kind of legislation that seeks to limit the ability of a particular people group into the country is unjust and a manifestation of its resolve to promote white supremacy. One argument that’s presented as a way to prove the theory that America is a racist nation and has a history of preventing specific ethnicities from entering the country is the Page Act of 1875.

1) Page Act of 1875

Beginning in 1845, Chinese looking to escape the sufferings of the Taiping Rebellion were easily convinced to sign contracts offered by recruiters featuring the promise of a better life in the US in exchange for an extended period of time as an indentured servant.

For all intents and purposes, these “contracts” weren’t designed for the sake of providing opportunities to Chinese foreigners as much as it was an attempt to circumvent the abolition of slavery and secure cheap labor provided by a nationality that was easy to exploit.

This was the “Coolie Trade.” Many of the Chinese that signed these contracts had no idea what they were actually signing up for. Some were actually forced to sign and the conditions that they had to contend with included being congregated at Hong Cong in Barracoons before they were loaded into ships and then transported to any one of a number of foreign destinations that included America, Britain, France Spain and Portugal.

While some died of disease or suicide in the Barracoons, the average mortality rate was 12% during the journey overseas which was the same mortality rate as the African Slave Trade. And while Chinese men were obviously preferred for the sake of physical labor, Chinese women were also being enslaved… …as prostitutes. In 1860, upwards of 85% of Chinese women in San Francisco were prostitutes.

An 1870 census reported that 61% of the 3536 Chinese women in California were employed as sexual appliances. Some of these girls had been kidnapped, many of them had been sold into slavery by their families. It was a terrible life in many ways…

Conditions in the California brothels, concentrated primarily in San Francisco and Los Angeles, were terrible. Often mistreated by customers, the indentured girls received little care and no medical attention. Homesick and left untreated for venereal disease or other illnesses, most women were broken within a few years and rarely lasted more than five or six years in bondage. Some who started when they were 14 years old were dead before they reached 20, according to Chinese academics Yung and Lucie Cheng and the reportage of Gary Kamiya based on stories in the “San Francisco Chronicle” archives.4

In 1862, the Republican party submitted a piece of legislation designed to put an end to the way in which the Chinese people were being abused and exploited. It proved almost impossible to enforce, however, because there was no way to systemically identify a “coolie” from a legitimate Chinese immigrant – an unfortunate circumstance that was enthusiastically embraced by those who profited from the, “Coolie Trade.”

The point of the legislation was not to restrict Chinese people, but to protect them from being exploited. It was called the “Page Act” because of it’s sponsor, Horace Page. When you look him up on Wikipedia, you find this:

Horace Francis Page (October 20, 1833 – August 23, 1890) was an American lawyer and politician who represented California in the United States House of Representatives for five terms between 1873 and 1883. He is perhaps best known for the Page Act of 1875 which began the racial prohibitions against Asian, primarily Chinese, immigration. Page was among a faction of congressmen who openly used racist ideas to defend their positions. Page introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to the House. When arguing for a ban on the immigration of Chinese laborers, he sought to win support from those who believed in white racial superiority, telling his fellow members that “there is not a member upon this floor… who believes that the coming of the African race… was a blessing to us or to the African himself.5

The comment “…there is not a member upon this floor…who believes that the coming of the African race…was a blessing to us or to the African himself” makes it apparent that this man is a racist. But note the ellipsis (…). Anytime you see those three dots, you may want to roll up your sleeves and do some digging because there’s at least a chance that some crucial context is being omitted.

Here’s the actual comment he made as recorded in the Congressional Record dated March 15, 1882:

I believe, Mr Speaker, that there is not a member upon this floor, of either party, who believes that the coming of the African race to this country originally was a blessing to us or to the African himself. Their condition has long been a subject of careful and earnest consideration among thoughtful people.

The time was, Mr Speaker, when the United States Government undertook to suppress African slavery, or when it entered into an agreement in a treaty with other governments that they would suppress African slavery. It also provided by law that when any vessel having slaves on board was captured upon the high seas by any of our cruisers those Africans found on board and held as slaves, if brought to the United States, should only remain her six months and then be returned back to their native country.6

The point Page was making is that Africans were not brought here voluntarily. As slaves they were subjected to all kinds of inhumane treatment and the result was a horrific existence for the slave and ultimately a war that would wipe out over a quarter of a million people.

While he doesn’t reference the Civil War in his comments, Page was a Major in the California Militia– a unit that was active during the conflict.7 In addition, later on in his comments, he speaks specifically to the Chinese people in general. He says:

The other sections of the bill provide that any native of China who comes here for the purpose of trade or travel or of engaging in legitimate commerce may do so unrestricted and shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the most favored nation.8

When you take the context of his comments into consideration as well as his military record, you find yourself viewing Page not so much as a Racist, but as someone who was concerned about a specific situation more so than a general people group.

If Page was alive today, I can’t help but think he wouldn’t be extremely offended to be labeled, not only a Racist in the context of African Americans, but also in the way he was maligned for supposedly targeting Chinese people in general as opposed to those who were here either against their will or brought here under false pretenses. It’s not that he was looking to limit their opportunities as much as he was trying to destroy the trade of their oppressors.

But did you see how Mickey Hood was used to make Page and his legislation appear malicious?

B) Christopher Columbus

For centuries, Christopher Columbus has been respected as a brave and virtuous explorer credited for having discovered the New World. Recently, however, historians such as Howard Zinn have depicted Columbus as a greedy racist intent on enslaving the natives he encountered and ushered in a wave of disease and abuse that qualifies him as a true villain. He quotes from Columbus’ journals with things like this:

(describing the natives) They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane…The would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.9

Again, you see the ellipsis and the “mystery” suggested by those three dots does not disappoint, as far as the way it hides the context that Zinn obviously wants to conceal. Columbus’ actual log entry was this (the highlighted section is what Zinn omits):

Thursday, October 11: They neither carry nor know anything of arms, for I showed them swords, and they took them by the blade and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their darts being wands without iron, some of them having a fish’s tooth at the end, and others being pointed in various ways. They are all of fair stature and size, with good faces, and well made. I saw some with marks of wounds on their bodies, and I made signs to ask what it was, and they gave me to understand that people for other adjacent islands came with the intention of seizing them, and that they defended themselves. I believed, and still believe, that they come here from the mainland to take them prisoners. They should be good servants and intelligent, for I observed that they quickly too in what was said to them, and I believe that they would easily be made Christians, as it appeared to me that they had no religion.10

Columbus wasn’t saying they would make good servants because he had in mind to expand the slave trade to include the natives he had just discovered. Rather, he was observing why this particular people would be potentially victimized by neighboring tribes because they were so submissive.

In his translation of Columbus’s log, Robert Fuson discusses the context that Zinn deliberately left out: “The cultural unity of the Taino [the name for this particular tribe, which Zinn labels “Arawaks”] greatly impressed Columbus…Those who see Columbus as the founder of slavery in the New World are grossly in error. This thought occurred to [Samuel Eliot] Morison (and many others) who misinterpreted a statement made by Columbus on the first day in America, when he said, ‘They (the Indians) ought to be good servants.’ In fact, Columbus offered this observation in explanation of an earlier comment he had made, theorizing that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because there were so docile and obliging.”11

Notice Columbus’ statement: “They should be good servants” and how that one phrase is quoted by Zinn, but then nothing after that is cited until the next section of Columbus’ log which is… …three days later! It’s here where he mentions how the natives could easily be subjugated.

Sunday, October 14: I went to view all this this morning, in order to give an account to your Majesties and to decide where a fort could be built. I saw a piece of land which is much like an island, though it is not one, on which there were six huts. It could be made into an island in two days, though I see no necessity to do so since these people are very unskilled in arms, as your Majesties will discover from seven whom I caused to be taken and brought aboard so that they may learn our language and return. However, should your Highnesses command it all the inhabitants could be taken away to Castile or held as slaves on the island, for with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.12

It’s hard not to suspect Columbus of something sinister when you hear him assure his sovereigns that they could enslave all of the natives on the island with no problem because, after all, they don’t know anything about modern weaponry and, “…with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.” If Columbus’ actions had mirrored his comments, there would be good reason to believe that he was scheming to enslave and exploit the Arawaks. But Columbus’ first priority was to be an effective witness:

…welcomed as a “deliverer”
According to Professor Felipe Fernadndez-Armesto – a specialist in Latin American History and the author of Columbus, Columbus was actually, “welcomed as a deliverer” by the Arawaks because they were “already doomed by the fierce imperialism of the neighboring Caribs.16

“I,” he says, ” that we might form great friendship, for I knew that they were a people who could be more easily freed and converted to our holy faith by love than by force, gave to some of them red caps, and glass beads to put round their necks, and many other things of little value, which gave them great pleasure, and made them so much our friends that it was a marvel to see.13

Columbus wanted to convert them to the Christian faith. To do that, in his mind, required genuine friendship and compassion and you can see this if you read his journal entries in their appropriate context. Beyond that, however, you have the reality of a world that is not acknowledged at all by Zinn.

First off, while the natives that Columbus interacted with directly were docile enough, there were other tribes that he could confidently categorize as possible threats given the way in which they had demonstrated their willingness to attack the locals he had met.

The natives make war on each other, although these are very simple-minded and handsomely-formed people14

The Actions of Christopher Columbus…

In their book, “The Worlds of Christopher Columbus…”

…William and Carla Phillips point out, “One prime motive for European expansion, reiterated by nearly all of the early explorers, was a desire to spread Christianity. To the current cynical age, religious motivation is difficult to understand; it is much easier to assume that missionary zeal merely served to justify a lust for gold and glory. Christian faith in early modern Europe touched “virtually every aspect of human life.”18

 On his first return trip, Dr. Carol Delaney, author of “Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem,” writes…

“…Columbus did bring six natives back with him to Spain where they were “baptized with the king (Ferdinand), queen (Isabella), and Columbus standing as godparents. . . . One became Columbus’s godson who accompanied him on many of his later explorations. . . .”19

In addition to the civil unrest among the neighboring islands, it should also be noted that Columbus left some of his sailors behind when he made his way back to Europe only to return and find his men had been murdered to a man.15 So, there was ample reason to be precautious and tactical in the way one planned ahead for any kind of enduring outpost.

To evangelize would require, not only a place to inhabit, but also the means by which to protect oneself from the obvious presence of local violence. And while that perspective may require some conjecture, one aspect of Columbus’ journey which is not open to debate is the condition of Spain in 1492.

The Crusades had resulted in Spain being conquered in 711 A.D. From then until January 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabelle reclaimed Grenada from the Muslims, Spanish Christendom had endured almost eight centuries of jihad ravages including massacres, pillages and mass enslavements. Columbus was looking for an alternative route to East Asia in order to secure alliances and resources that could be used to reclaim the Holy Land from militant Muslims as well as eliminate the oppressive presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.17

There was more to this trip than a mere curiosity in global sea routes or even the possible discovery of mythical stores of gold. Columbus’ homeland was occupied, the Holy Land was still under Muslim control and there was a New World filled with souls that needed to hear the gospel. Taken together, Columbus’ journey had the potential to right several wrongs, not by supplementing the slave trade with more human resources, but by strengthening the Presence of Christ both at home and abroad.

There were matters far more pressing in Columbus’ mind than his bank statement. While his words can be taken out of context and used to characterize him as a fiend, his actions say otherwise as do the historians and eyewitnesses that are willing to take an objective view of history rather than one poisoned by a political agenda and determined to make use of the Progressive Pentagon.

Which of the tactics represented by the Mickey Hood acrostic are used by Zinn and his likeminded activists?

Seriously.

Take a minute and see if you can’t name a few…

IV) A Ready Response

In May of 1940, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands. Initially, Corrie Ten Boom and her family perceived any effort to protect a Jewish person as a political action and therefore something that didn’t necessarily coincide with a believer’s mandate to focus on matters of the soul as opposed to affairs of state. But one night, a Jewish infant was brought to the Ten Boom home. A local pastor, unwilling to take any personal risk, had brought the child to the Ten Boom’s. Appalled, Casper Ten Boom, Corrie’s father, took the child in and thus began an underground campaign that would successfully hide several Jewish persons, but would cost the lives of several in the Ten Boom family (see “Corrie Ten Boom: A Faith Undefeated”).

What the Ten Boom’s discovered is that Politics is ultimately the collection of laws that define the way a person is to be treated and perceived. Politics is about people and to that end a believer cannot ignore the impact a godly foundation  – or the lack thereof – can have on a government and ultimately the citizens who live beneath its legislative umbrella (Prov 29:2).

The purpose of this series is to reveal the spiritual aspect of Politics and to recognize the role that we must play as believers in order to preserve and promote the Truth that defines us as a nation and benefits us as a people. This is why you need to know our nation’s true history and our spiritual heritage. This is why you need to be aware of what’s going on and familiar with the tactics that we’ve discussed so that when it’s time to pray, you know what and who to pray for.

13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron 7:13-14)

At the beginning of our discussion we looked at Dr Thomas Sowell’s brilliant approach to summarizing the various political and sociological schools of thought into two main “visions.” But his approach can be boiled down into an even more rudimentary collection of categories…

Either God is God or man is god.

When you hear someone say, “You can’t make me believe the same things that you do!” they’re not wrong. You can’t “make” them drive on the right side of the road let alone believe in the God of the Bible.

But that’s not the point.

The question is whether you’re going to formulate your convictions according to what God says or someone else’s opinion.

The challenge, however, is that regardless of how bulletproof your logic may be, the proper processing of God as the Absolute against which all things moral and political are measured is not possible apart from having a relationship with Christ (1 Cor 2:12). This is how a conversation about Christ can occur – by being able to trace the foundation upon which you build your political convictions on the Word of God. And the thing is, you need to be able to do that because more and more our world is becoming a place where there is no bottom line, only different broadcasts. You go to the “Today Show,” and hear one perspective on the President’s State of the Union speech and you can go out and listen to Ben Shapiro offer a completely different viewpoint. Without a definitive Standard to compare things to, the only thing that qualifies something as being  “right” is however you as an individual want to process it.

If you perceive credibility as represented by academic degrees or by popular vote, than there is no “right” or “wrong,” there’s just consensus. We are who we are as a nation because we had more than a group dynamic to base our convictions upon and we are that same nation today, but only to the extent that godly men are willing to take their place at God’s Throne on their knees, pray, seek His Face, turn from the wicked ways and ask Him to heal out land (2 Chron 7:14).

God cares about Politics because God cares about people and it’s prayer that resulted in the Declaration of Independence, it’s prayer that produced the Constitution, it’s prayer that has seen us through multiple wars and crises and it’s prayer that will make the difference now.

  1. “The Independent Whig”, “sowell: the unconstrained vision”, https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/sowell-constrained-and-unconstrained-visions/sowell-the-unconstrained-vision/, accessed February 22, 2022
  2. Ibid
  3. Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry, “Commentary on Exodus 4”, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/4.html, accessed February 20, 2022
  4. “China’s Lost Women in the Far West”, Historynet, https://www.historynet.com/chinas-lost-women-in-the-far-west/, accessed February 27, 2022
  5. Wikipedia, “Horace F. Page”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_F._Page, accessed February 23, 2022
  6. Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
  7. Page was attached to the unit based out of Placerville, which was the county seat of El Dorado County. You can visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_State_Militia_civil_war_units#Placer_County to see which units were active during the Civil War
  8. Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
  9. “A People’s History of the United States”, Howard Zinn, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY, originally published in 1980, p1
  10. “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real, p38
  11. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p12
  12. “Christopher Columbus: The Four Voyages”, Being his own log book, letters and dispatches with connecting narrative drawn from the Life of the Admiral by his son Hernando Colon and other contemporary historians, edited by J.M. Cohen, Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1969, p58
  13. “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, p101, https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/columbus/Columbus-Journal.pdf, accessed February 23, 2022
  14. Ibid, p42
  15. In “Debunking Howard Zinn,” author Mary Grabar explains how Columbus lost one of his ships and had to leave some sailors behind in that there wasn’t room for everyone on the return voyage. When he returned, every one of his men had been killed. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regency History, Washington D.C, 2019, p16
  16. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p10
  17. “Muslim Spain”, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml#:~:text=In%20711%20Muslim%20forces%20invaded,1492%20when%20Granada%20was%20conquered, accessed February 27, 2022
  18. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p14
  19. “Scholar disputes source of criticism of Columbus (Commentary)”, Mary Grabar, Ph.D., syracuse.com, https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2020/07/scholar-disputes-source-of-criticism-of-columbus-commentary.html, accessed March 1, 2022

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III

/0 Comments/in , /by

I) Intro

Thus far we’ve looked at how God does care about Politics and He expects us to be engaged. We looked at how the best candidates are going to be those whose platforms take the same approach as the one our Founders took when they defeated the most powerful empire on earth and built a political system founded on Biblical Absolutes.

In Part II we examined the difference between being smart and being wise in the way we process the headlines and the media that we consume.

This week we continue our discussion on being discerning when it comes to the way in which current events are presented by looking at a series of tactics that are sometimes used when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

II) Meet Saul Alinski

“Rules for Radicals” is a book authored by Saul Alinski, a “Community Organizer” that made a name for himself by developing a series of tactics designed to agitate and coerce decision makers to the point where they would be willing to make concessions that they wouldn’t consider otherwise.

It’s not wrong to be persistent or even shrewd in the way you obtain justice from an authority who is neither compassionate nor just (Matt 10:16; Lk 18:1-8). But anything done in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10) translates to something evil.

  • Unity becomes Corruption (1 Cor 1:10)
  • Love becomes Neglect (Prov 19:18; Heb 12:7)
  • Compassion becomes a Subsidy (Prov 23:9; 26:4-8)
  • Peace becomes Indifference (Jud 1:19-26; Prov 6:10-11)
  • …and Change becomes Destruction (Ex 32:1; Jud 2:10-11; 1 Kings 12:28-30)

Saul Alinski aligned himself with noble causes, but his methods and his rhetoric betrayed an unhealthy commitment to the acquisition of power more so than the realization of principle. You see that reflected in the dedication he wrote at the beginning of his book:

Alinski’s Rules…

Saul Alinski may have been spiritually bankrupt, but there’s no denying that his tactics proved to be very effective and continue to be effective to this day. If you’re going to defeat your enemy, you have to know how he works so you can know how to respond. But ideally, you want to have a platform in place that anticipates his strategies to the point where they’re rendered useless because of the way in which your content is structured and presented.

Rules for Radicals

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and how is to know where mythology leaves off and history beings – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer

In his book, Reveille for Radicals, Alinski said that all radicals like himself “want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism…They hope for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people.”1

This was the goal.

It wasn’t the elimination of Racism or Poverty as much as it was acquiring the needed power to facilitate a Socialist approach to government.

There are many informed commentaries on the fallacies of Socialism that rightfully underscore everything from the lethal consequences of a Socialist doctrine to the economic chaos of artificial pricing. But there’s one aspect of Socialism that often gets missed which reveals it as something that is diametrically opposed to Scripture.

A) Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Socialists generally categorize a population under two headings:

  • the rich, who are corrupt and
  • the poor who are oppressed

Those who are not where they want to be financially are, in some cases, drawn to this paradigm because in the mind of the Socialist, among the poor you have only noble and hardworking individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a flawed system.

This is an attractive option for the person who has made some bad choices because if there are no fools and there no fiends among the “downtrodden,” then they cannot be held accountable for their actions and they bear no responsibility for their choices.

But Scripture is heavily populated with verses that contrast the success of those who are diligent and the difficulties faced by those who insist on being foolish. Proverbs 24: 30-34 says:

I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)

On the other hand, it says in Proverbs 10:4:

Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Prov 10:4)

While there are situations that can be categorized as tragic and overwhelming, you also have scenarios that are intentionally exaggerated in order to make an irresponsible disposition appear reasonable:

A sluggard says, “There’s a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!” 14 As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. 15 A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. (Prov 26:13-15)

Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Ecc 11:4)

In the context of Socialism, there’s no acknowledgement of how poor decision making can contribute to any one of a number of difficult situations. Victor Davis Hanson is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College.

He had this to say about the way in which more and more young Americans are gravitating to Socialism:

Many young people claim to be socialists but are instead simply angry that they were unable to afford a home, a new car, or other nice things, or start a family in their “woke” urban neighborhoods during a decade of muted economic growth (2008–17) and high unemployment. In college, they were not warned about the dangers of statism and collectivism, nor given the skills to look at the world empirically. The combination of nonmarketable degrees and skills with burdensome debt helped alter an entire generation’s customs, habits, and thinking.2

Compare the way in which the perspective of someone who has a very limited resume, yet feels entitled to those things that have to be earned and not simply obtained – how does that line up with God’s View as expressed in Proverbs 24:27?

 Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. (Prov 24:27)

Typically, a person’s situation is going to be characterized by things that constitute both personal flaws as well as challenging circumstances (Jn 16:33; Rom 3:23). To assert the idea that every difficulty you contend with is due to a systemic restriction and you bear no responsibility whatsoever for those choices that contributed to the problem – not only is that a nonsensical philosophy, but it also violates what God says in Galatians 6:7:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (Gal 6:7)

In short, Socialism cannot be discussed let alone deployed without minimizing the way in which God expects individuals to take responsibility for their actions (Rom 14:12). However convenient or challenging your environment may be, Scripture makes it clear that you have available to you every Resource that you need to rise above those things that would otherwise limit you or tear you down (2 Cor 9:8; Jas 1:13). Whatever the evil may be that stands between you and your ambition – be it the most desperate desire to survive or a noble passion to succeed – because you are not alone (Matt 28:20) and He promises that all things work together for the good (Rom 8:28) – you cannot blame anything or anyone for having yielded to the temptation to stop striving (Jn 16:33) without accusing God of having stopped caring (Rom 8:32).

Socialism’s True Result
Josef Stalin liquidated twenty million people to create the collective basis for the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward cost China forty-five million dead. Pol Pot’s back-to-the-land experiment murdered well over one million in Cambodia. Various disasters in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe turned once-prosperous states into murderous, impoverished socialist dictatorships.3

It is God Who is in control and it is His Purpose and Power in and through a person that makes the difference both individually (Rom 12:1-2) and collectively (Ps 33:12; 84:11). Still, the temptation to take the wheel from your Heavenly Father and insist that it’s your turn to drive is alluring despite the fact that it is toxic (Prov 14:12).

This is why Socialism appeals despite the Truth it ignores and the lives it has taken. And this is why you want to be aware of what’s going on and what’s being said.

This is why you want to Pop the Hood, Keep Your Balance and Kick the Tires.

It’s also why you want to be aware of the some of the more frequently used tactics deployed by those who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

This is where Saul Alinski comes in.

His book, Rules for Radicals details 13 tactics that can be used to get your way by virtue of the manner in which they extort, embarrass and manipulate your opponent.

In today’s discussion, we’re going to build on some of Alinski’s rules, not for the sake of glorifying them but for the sake of exposing them. And then we’re going to get more detailed in how Alinski’s approach is manifested in the media according to five easy to remember and recognize tactics we’re going to call the Progressive Pentagon.

Here we go…

III) The Progressive Pentagon

There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide. I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends its stance and attacks its opponents. It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant. Here’s the five tactics we’re going to look at:

  • They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
  • They spend more time attacking their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content
  • They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
  • They spend more time trying to appear honest than they do telling the truth.
  • They spend more time defending bad decisions and demonizing personal responsibility than they do applauding wise choices and holding people accountable for their actions.

Let’s start by looking at “Mobs…”

A) Mobs

They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
God Knows…

“Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed.” (1 Sam 2:3)

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

…then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), (1 Kings 8:39)

I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Rev 2:23)

You can conceal a person’s lack of judgment by presenting them as part of a supposedly virtuous group. You can do the same thing, only in reverse, by making a sinister collective appear innocent by associating them with an honorable person or intention. Both approaches are part of a heinous tactic that seeks to assign whole demographics a specific morality, regardless of the individuals who do or do not qualify… …and it’s often used by that person who has something to hide.

1) God Doesn’t Look at Your Appearance

God doesn’t look at your appearance, He looks at your heart. So, however you would try to elevate or justify yourself by insisting that your membership in a particular tribe, company or movement is sufficient to validate your status as a moral individual, those efforts will not only fall short in the sight of God, they also tend to fail in the marketplace as well (Pro 1:32, 3:35; 10:10; Gal 6:7-8).

Jews in the time of Christ saw themselves as justified before God because of their last name (Dt 14:1-2). As a result, they felt comfortable being critical of others, despite the fact that they were just as guilty before God as those they were criticizing.

Paul takes all of that apart in Romans 2:17-29. He summarizes everything beginning in verse 28:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom 2:28-29)

It’s not about a label, a mob or a crowd. Ultimately, the credibility of your platform is going to be measured according to the character and conduct of the individual in question and not the assumed morality of the collective.

B) Character

They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing the content of their opponent’s platform.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinski documents Rule #13 as: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

What you’re doing here is identifying a particular individual as the one who’s “responsible” for whatever the problem may be. Once you have your target, you focus all of your attack on them as opposed to anyone else who may bear some responsibility.

That’s how you “freeze” them.

And the one thing you want to keep in mind when selecting your target is that they must qualify as an intuitive personification of the problem you’re trying to solve. You make them the “poster child” for your cause and by giving your campaign a face and a specific behavior or quality to despise, you give your platform emotional momentum that draws people in because of the way they want to be perceived as compassionate and justifiably indignant.

1) A Nazarene and a Son of Mary

Jesus of Nazareth… His hometown wasn’t especially noteworthy and some saw that as one more reason to doubt His Authenticity as the Messiah. Even when Nathanael was skeptical. When first told about Jesus, Nathanael said:

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip. (Jn 1:46)

In addition, Jesus was never referred to as “Joseph’s son.” Rather, He was always referred to as “Mary’s son…”

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mk 6:3)

Reason being is that, in the mind of His detractors, He was an illegitimate child which made Him all the less likely to be “Divine.” Christ’s critics spent more time attempting to discredit Him than they did actually listening to Him. And the more people that were drawn to His Message, the more the Pharisees resolved to attack His Character, even to the point where they made Him out to be an enemy of the state.

IV) Conclusion

In Part IV we’re going to conclude our series by wrapping up the remainder of the “Progressive Pentagon” as well as take apart some examples where you can hear these tactics being deployed. In the end, it’s not about winning elections or being overly cynical as much as it’s about being aware and being wise when it comes to the way in which we process current events.

  1. Sanford Horwitt, Let Them Call Me a Rebel: Saul Alinski, His Life and Legacy (New York: Vintage Books, 1992); Saul Alinski, Reveille for Radicals, p25, books.google .com
  2. Hoover Institution, “Our Socialist Future?”, Victor Davis Hanson, https://www.hoover.org/research/our-socialist-future-0, accessed February 16, 2022
  3. Andreas Kluth, “Why Germany Will Never Be Europe’s Leader,” Bloomberg Opinion, April 29, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-30/coronavirus-crisis-why-germany-will-never-be-europe-s-leader; Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey, “Tensions Mount between EU Members Ahead of Budget Talks,” The Guardian, February 19, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/tensions-mount-between-eu-members-ahead-of-budget-talks; Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, “Will Coronavirus Kill the European Union?,” City Journal, March 27, 2020, https://www.city-journal.org/covid-19-european-union.