Sunday, February 10, 2019
First, I have been grousing (i.e. I have written several blogs) about the lack of engagement of our culture by conservative denominations. For the most part, at least in their statements of purpose, their Sunday sermons, and their various ministries, they seem to care not whether the founding freedoms of this country that give us religious liberty remain or not. Or at the very least, they are taken for granted and rarely mentioned.
Conservative churches dwell solely (many say appropriately so) on personal salvation. Few if any words or admonitions are spoken about the unGodly direction our nation has taken over the last few decades – and especially the recent path many leaders and their many constituents have taken in their hard left turn toward a socialism that dismisses God in favor of more government in the name of “social justice.”
So, my startling revelation is this: Liberal churches, including mainstream Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics and several other denominations that are known as “liberal” or “progressive” are all about promoting less God and more government. One example I noticed this evening is a PCUSA Church that noted in its statement of purpose the promotion of “justice.” Who doesn’t want “justice?” But in the context of that Church’s political leanings that I am fully aware distort many aspects of Scripture including the Gospel of Christ, their definition of “justice” means the “social justice” of open borders, one world government, equal outcomes for all, and basically the atheistic agenda of “more government/less God.”
No, Jesus would not want that because it goes against all Biblical teaching of personal responsibility, giving voluntarily to people in need, not through mandatory taxation, not through bigger, coercive government. The liberal churches ignore the Christian precepts which were the building blocks of our Republic: Based on a population that was generally unified in adhering to Biblical morality as understood and taught by this nation’s early settlers and influenced by devout ministers and evangelists of that day.
Continuing with my revelation, while liberal churches promote a socialist agenda, conservative churches are absolutely SILENT on these matters. Conservative churches have turned totally inward and have become all about “me”, “my” salvation, feeling good. We are no longer engaged with the culture and avoid at all costs the thought of influencing government in any Godly direction because, heaven forbid, it might be called POLITICS. And tax laws are only used as a convenient excuse to not venture into this territory. It’s like the pummeling that the “moral majority” movement of three decades ago has caused conservative Christians and their churches to become shell shocked. We were mocked into a corner of non-engagement – we now know our place.
No, that is not our place. Our place is to be salt and light in the world. We are to influence every sphere of influence at our disposal: Our homes, our communities, our places of work, our voting booths, and our government.
Apostate liberal churches are promoting their version of governance in their services and perverted doctrine. Isn’t it time conservative churches began, once again, to promote sound doctrine to influence our culture and government in a more Godly direction?
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
In reaction to the alleged sins of Representative Steven King (R-Iowa) as called out by a group of Democrat-lite Republicans, the New York Times released its list of what it deems “racist” comments by King over the last few years.
Here are just a few of them, but look at the linked article for yourself:
Mr. King, in the Iowa State Senate, files a bill requiring schools teach that the United States “is the unchallenged greatest nation in the world and that it has derived its strength from … Christianity, free enterprise capitalism and Western civilization.”
My take: That is called “nationalism”: Being proud of the nation we are a part of. This was taught in US public schools until the 60’s when progressives/socialists changed the curriculum to demean our nation’s history and promoted “globalism”, the new “correct-think.”
Mr. King is the chief sponsor of a law making English the official language of Iowa.
My take: Millions in the US believe we are more unified and a better nation if we maintained English as our official language.
Now in Congress, Mr. King introduces the English Language Unity Act, a bill to make English the official language of the United States.
My take: How is this “racist?”
Mr. King sues the Iowa Secretary of State for posting voting information on an official website in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian and Vietnamese.
My take: When immigrants come into the US, learning English is the surest way toward assimilation and success of the immigrant. Perpetuating the use of foreign languages in government communications is a misuse and a waste of taxpayer resources.
At a rally in Las Vegas, Mr. King calls the deaths of Americans at the hands of undocumented immigrants “a slow-motion Holocaust.” He claims that 25 Americans die daily because of undocumented immigrants, an unsupported and illogical leap from government statistics, which years later influences talking points by President Trump.
My take: The socialist/liberal media ignore and underreport the negative impacts of undocumented/illegal immigrants. King is anticipating the longer term consequences that the media prefers to ignore. How is it “racist” to attempt to reduce the death toll from undocumented illegal alien criminals?
On the House floor, Mr. King demonstrates a model of a 12-foot concrete border wall topped with electrified wire that he designed: “We need to do a few other things on top of that wall, and one of them being to put a little bit of wire on top here to provide a disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there. We could also electrify this wire … We do that with livestock all the time.”
My take: Many locations along the Mexican border are in need of additional reinforcement. King is taking the initiative to suggest additional measures for border security to be more effective, measures the emotion-driven liberal media do not want taken. Regarding “electrification” of the barbed wire, King specified (and the NYT omitted) that it would not be electrified to the point of killing, but only to discourage. Again, the media will distort words and intent to discredit and disparage at every opportunity.
Mr. King on the House floor, speaking of how law enforcement officers can spot undocumented immigrants:
What kind of clothes people wear … what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accent they have … sometimes it’s just a sixth sense they can’t put their finger on.
My take: This is called “profiling”: Using common sense rational observation to identify individuals apt to engage in criminal activity. Law enforcement agencies use this tool every day. Liberals/progressive hate this when it works against their globalist/no-borders agenda.
Mr. King in a speech opposing the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to cover contraception:
Preventing babies being born is not medicine. That’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birthrate get down below the replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.
My take: It is a fact that the birth rate of native American citizens is trending toward falling below the replacement level. Falling native birthrates necessitates the actions being taken by European nations in their policies of unbridled immigration that changes the culture of their nations. Nations that have little or no respect for their existing culture will have no problem with unbridled immigration and the cultural changes that creates.
On a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference with Peter Brimelow, an open white nationalist, Mr. King referred to multiculturalism as:
A tool for the Left to subdivide a culture and civilization into our own little ethnic enclaves and pit us against each other.
My take: Brimelow is “white” and a “nationalist” which the liberal media immediately casts as an evil. Being “white”, “male” and “Christian” is a particular evil in the eyes of progressives. It is true that multiculturalism (promoting diverse cultures and religions that are likely to be incompatible with our own) erodes national unity and makes it more difficult to create and preserve a national consensus on a wide variety of issues. And we wonder why our nation is so divided?
Mr. King on why he opposes legal status for Dreamers, who were brought into the country as children:
For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.
My take: The liberals/progressive report only the occasional positive, e.g. the rare immigrant “valedictorian.” They ignore the much more common drug runner who illegally crosses the same border. Yes, I know, liberals tend to be the more prolific drug users, so this just stands to reason: Call those “racist” who promote the cessation of drug runners.
Mr. King invites the far-right, anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders to Washington and appears with him at the Capitol. Mr. Wilders has called Islam “not a religion,” said the Quran was “worse than Mein Kampf,” and called for the closing of mosques.
My take: Geert Wilders is among the very few politicians who understand and who are rightly concerned with the doctrines of Islam and the subversive and often violent actions of its more devout Muslim followers. It is also true that the most dangerous aspect of the Islamic doctrine is its subversive political ideology that permeates its doctrine. Most if not all mosques are centers of Islamic supremacism and subversion.
How is this comment even racist? Islam is not a “race”. It is primarily a violent and supremacist political ideology shared by numerous races around the globe.
Mr. King tweets a selfie with Mr. Wilders in front of a portrait of Winston Churchill. Mr. Wilders praises Mr. King for having “the guts to speak out.”
My take: This Times statement reveals the ignorance of the Times editors and its alliance with the Islamic cause. While the statement is intended as a “negative”, it is a positive statement for anyone who knows both Wilders and King and the unreported aspects of Islam.
And now the King statement that got him removed by his fellow [RINO, quasi-Democrat] fellow Republicans:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?” Mr. King said in an interview with The New York Times published last week.
Obviously, according to politically correct orthodoxy, only blacks can promote their “blackness”, their race. There are dozens of organizations across the land that promote the black race. HERE and HERE are a few. Any organization that promotes the success of the “white race” is condemned as racist. It is OK for Mexicans to promote LaRaza (translated, means “the race”) to reconquer the US southwest for “their race.” The left ignores this.
It appears that the left’s “tolerant” intolerance allows or encourages racism by every race except Caucasians. If we dare promote the “white” race, we are defamed and condemned.
I, too, sat in public school classes where I was taught how the white Anglo-Saxon protestants formed our nation, and how that was called a “good thing.” But apparently the public schools back then got things all wrong. Our nation was settled by a bunch of racist money grubbing scoundrels. Any thought to the contrary is now “racist.” You want to know what is truly “racist”? Our nation’s “affirmative action” laws that give unmerited favor to a particular race, dismissing those who are better qualified, whether it is through our college admissions or our hiring criteria. And anyone who states their belief that affirmative action laws are racist is called “racist.” Go figure. Steve King is guilty of two things: Truth telling and naivete. Truth telling because our controlling elites won’t tolerate the truth. Naivete because King should have known better than to provide his frank and truthful thoughts to a progressive/socialist outlet like the NYT. HERE is the NYT hit piece on Steven King. Note the repetitious use of the term “far right” when referring to people King respects. Such terms are relative to how far in the other direction the name caller happens to be. In this case the New York Times is a heavily biased FAR LEFT publication which favors open borders, globalism, and has little regard for our nation’s founding values.
You want to know what is truly “racist”? Our nation’s “affirmative action” laws that give unmerited favor to a particular race, dismissing those who are better qualified, whether it is through our college admissions or our hiring criteria. And anyone who states their belief that affirmative action laws are racist is called “racist.” Go figure.
Steve King is guilty of two things: Truth telling and naivete. Truth telling because our controlling elites won’t tolerate the truth. Naivete because King should have known better than to provide his frank and truthful thoughts to a progressive/socialist outlet like the NYT.
HERE is the NYT hit piece on Steven King. Note the repetitious use of the term “far right” when referring to people King respects. Such terms are relative to how far in the other direction the name caller happens to be. In this case the New York Times is a heavily biased FAR LEFT publication which favors open borders, globalism, and has little regard for our nation’s founding values.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Have you noticed on virtually every mainstream media newscast, when referring to the voter’s demand for border security or to the partial government shutdown, they refer to the issue as “Trump’s wall?”
Not “our wall” or “the nation’s wall”, or “the needed wall”, but “Trump’s wall”, as if he is the ONLY one promoting the wall, fence, border security or national security. Trump won the election, receiving 306 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 234, primarily on the basis of the electorate demanding enhanced border security and embracing Trump’s promise of a wall.
Have these media all been assigned the same script – the same talking points? This is enough to make a conspiracy theory skeptic into a conspiracy theorist! Of the dozens of media outlets I follow, only the 5% that remain conservative refrain from calling it “Trump’s wall.”
Trump’s wall: An intended and biased slander.
As has been pointed out, Obama recently had a 10’ wall constructed around his DC home. Is that Obama’s wall, or a wall to protect his home from violent left wingers – Bill Ayers types?
The Vatican has a wall. Does the media call it “the Pope’s wall?”
I hate to think that most media are controlled by former left wing San Francisco, drug-addict hippies from the 60’s or their more recent clones. But nothing else makes much sense.
I cannot fathom those who dis the concept of national security and its close relative, border security, of which a difficult to penetrate wall or fence are major components.
I guess the opposition is comprised of the same vocal crowd who condemn “nationalism”, “patriotism”, honoring parents, respecting the elderly, working for a living and who praise multi-gendered Boy Scouts.
It is a sick, sick culture we find ourselves in. A nation cannot long stand with such.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
I’ll speculate the answer to this question by putting myself in the mindset of wanting to avoid such discussion.
What might my reasons be?
First, it might be that my mind is made up. I know I’m right. I don’t want to be bothered by someone else’s opinion. It would be a waste of time.
Second, it might be that I just don’t care – a "Que Será, Será” attitude: Whatever will be, will be. Or shorthand in today’s vernacular: “Whatever.” Leave me out of it.
Third, it might be that I want to avoid an “argument” because in my life experience I’ve come to consider “spirited discussion” to be argumentative and unpleasant; I need my “safe space”, I am a “snowflake”. In short, I want to be “polite” via self-censorship.
Fourth, it might be that I have an overly broad definition of “politics.” I might consider a number of essential human interactions to be encompassed by the word “politics” and I just don’t want to discuss them because I consider them to be “political”; too dicey; too controversial; too subjective. What are some of the verboten topics some consider to be components of politics that are declared off limits?
- Economics and tax policy
- Appropriate size and reach of government
- The extent that our human affairs are regulated
- Ability to possess our own means of self-defense verses a mandate to rely solely on government law enforcement
- The extent to which man or cosmos controls climate
- The extent we allow our nation to be controlled by outside (international) regulation and control
- The extent we control who enters or who is prohibited from entering our nation, and on what basis
- The aspects of “religion” that are subject to first amendment protections and what aspects should not be. Examples: Santeria rituals; Islamic Sharia.
There are likely many more topics that folks might place under the umbrella of “politics” as an excuse to avoid discussion.
All too often, we avoid discussing a broad array of topics that should be discussed such as the topics listed above because we or others have a waaay overly broad definition of “politics.”
So this brief analysis causes me to wonder what ideological predispositions might tend to cause one to avoid discussion of “politics?”
In my own life experience, and tempting the label of bigot and various forms of –phobery, here is my list and reasons for their inclusion:
- The clueless because they don’t know any better
- Willfully ignorant because they refuse new information
- Those caught up in social media, career, grandchildren, health issues, sports, TV and Hollywood entertainment personality cults because they have no time or interest in anything else
- Narcissists because they are self-centered; no room for interests outside of “self.”
- Liberals and progressives because they look down on conservative thought and conservatives, no matter how well informed, as backwards and not worthy of respect or discussion with them.
Whenever any of these classifications of folks are opposed to conservative thought, the polite ones merely refuse discussion. The others resort to demonstrations (sometimes violent), name calling and mockery. Most of our colleges and universities do both. Public schools, overall, stifle the open discussion of “politics” because such discussion might conflict with the official socialist indoctrination agenda.
And the Churches. Ahh, the Churches. Most choose to avoid discussion of “politics” at all cost. And by their avoidance they avoid applying Biblical doctrine to many crucial aspects of our lives. For that omission, our culture is paying dearly.
This concludes my primordial urge to classify those who dislike political discussion.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
- The migration has been planned and organized with the intent to “invade”, I.e. enter another nation illegally
- Most migrants have expressed an intent to enter the United States illegally
- Many migrants are carrying the flag of their home nation (giving the impression of a national force intending invasion) which begs the question then of “why are they leaving their home nation?”
- Many within the migration have already demonstrated their lawlessness by breaking through barriers and forcing their way through the national borders of Guatemala and Mexico.
- Most of the migrants expect to be employed in the US, lowering wages and filling positions that entry level employees who are currently US citizens must now compete for – a form of plunder.
- Most of the migrants expect to receive US “booty” in the form of free health care, free education, subsidized housing, and reduced in-state tuition for “illegals” offered by a number of state governors – another form of plunder.
- Though denied by liberal media, it is otherwise common knowledge that some unknown hundreds are comprised of MS-13 gang members, ISIS, or others whose ideology is at odds with US culture and laws. See HERE and HERE
- It is not likely that everyone is unarmed.
- It is not likely that everyone is free of transmissible disease.
By the way, HERE is DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's description of why we need to have deep concerned about this "non-invasion."
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Everyone believes that sometime in their lives they were a victim of something. But the “victim”/"victimizer” similarities with the self-identified victimhood of the left stop there.
As discussed in a previous blog, the left, inclusive of Antifa, BLM, MeToo, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Democrats use their “victim” label as an excuse to demonize and often physically attack those with whom they do not agree. Most recently, these targets of their wrath include Conservatives, Christians, Men, Caucasians, and the elderly. These are all considered the “victimizers” – those who are responsible for the victim’s status as victims.
The point, however, goes well beyond the mere self-declaration of victimhood. It goes to the reaction of leftist “victims” – the words and actions the victims use to demonize, slander, threaten, intimidate and commit violence against the alleged victimizer group.
The overwhelming tactic of Conservatives and Christians, when felt to be victims - and many of us increasingly feel thus – is to write, call, talk, pray, forgive, dialogue, and base our arguments on faith, facts and reason.
Not so with the left. These conservative tactics are but a small pea shooter within the arsenal of tactics used by the left. The left uses the playbook of Bill Ayers, Barack’s and Michelle’s pal, who relished blowing up buildings. They use the playbook of their favorite historical heroes like Lenin, Mao, Che, and Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
One of my favorites from “Rules” is this one:
“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”
And that is exactly what we have been experiencing from the left. This “rule” is a rewrite of the Marxist phrase “the end justifies the means”, a Machiavellian concept that describes any crafty or deceitful action used for one's own advantage.
And the left has done this in spades. Every slander (think Kavanaugh); every accusation (think Trump/Russia); every violent, destructive demonstration (think Antifa); every rant against men (think “MeToo”); every demonstration against cops (think Black Lives Matter) – each of these is done under the cloak of “moral superiority.” And such moral superiority is felt to justify ANY MEANS – lie, cheat, steal, rig votes, promote violence, destruction and vilification – to accomplish the purpose of the victim, which is what?
To discredit, overcome and gain superiority and control over the alleged victimizer.
And the labels of “victimizers” are not limited to just the justifiable individual perpetrators. They extend to entire classes of people: all men, all cops, all Conservatives, all Christians, all whites, all patriots. This is called “discrimination”, but far be it from the left to admit that.
The distinction is that the left does NOT take the moral high road in spite of the image they wish to portray. Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, do. We do not believe “the end justifies the means.” The moral high road is sticking to moral means to achieve a moral end. The left believes that any immoral, illegal, or violent means is justified by their end - which completely discredits whatever their purpose and goals may be.
Friday, November 02, 2018
You may be “white”, aka “Caucasian.” You might also love your country, want it to prosper, want to defend it. That might describe a “nationalist.” Actually, a common definition of “nationalist” is “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.” But to the left, this means you are a racist white national.
So, does being “white” and being a “nationalist” make one a racist, hater and bigot? Advocates of Social Justice would like to make us think so.
Just who advocates “social justice?” Generally, leftists, socialists, progressives, Communists, Antifa, and Black Live Matter, MeToo, and most feminists.
What do these groups have in common with social justice? Each group has two primary attributes: 1) They believe they are a victim, and 2) they believe anyone who is better off is the victimizer, the oppressor, an evil being, or hater.
Being a victimizer, oppressor, an evil being or hater of course justifies being demonized. Call whites who love their country a “white nationalist” or “racist bigot hater.” Call males “chauvinist pigs”, “misogynists”. Call anyone who has a bigger house or nicer car a “greedy no good capitalist.” It won’t matter that these alleged “victimizers” are upstanding, hardworking, moral individuals. That is beside the point for social justice leftists.
The ages old sin of envy and jealousy is deployed as a weapon to further the cause of the left and the cause of social justice in particular.
What motivates social justice warriors? What is their underlying belief system? First, they believe “equal outcomes” is much more important than “equal opportunity (*).” They not only want the “opportunity” playing field to be leveled, they demand that the distribution of resources be leveled: Income, capital, assets, possessions. Anyone who possesses less for any reason, including indolence, incompetence, or poor life choices is the victim. Anyone who has more than they have for any reason, including hard work, good fortune, or wisely applied intelligence, is the oppressor. Victims must be celebrated and promoted. Oppressors must be condemned, demonized, and in some examples in world history, slaughtered en masse (Jews were seen as wealthy bankers who financially oppressed others. Nazi’s and Muslims grabbed onto this belief as an excuse for genocide.)
So, here’s what happens to our words in furtherance of the social justice cause:
White means racist because whites are seen as the ones at the top of the food chain.
Male means domineering and mean, because males are seen as historically domineering over females.
Nationalist means hating all other races and nations because Globalism promises “equal outcomes” more than freedom does.
Patriot means dangerous, militant far right radical because patriots want to defend their nation.
Merriam-Webster provides an excellent comparison of “Patriotism and Nationalism” HERE. The article demonstrates the recent negative twist to our understanding of “nationalism.” It won’t be long before the word “patriotism” suffers the same fate at the hands of globalists and the left.
Here are some matching concepts to consider:
Conservatism invokes ideas of…
- Strong borders
- Equal opportunity
- Common law-/Bible-based justice
- Promotion of self defense including gun rights
- Honors creativity, hard work, self-motivation, self sufficiency
- Tolerates most opposing views
- God honoring, Bible believing (mostly), traditional family oriented; reliance on God for justice, mercy, help, protection.
- Perception of Islam as a historically violent, supremacist ideology and a proven threat to Western civilization
- Promotes using words in their traditional sense without distorting the language to mean the opposite.
- Lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government
- Use of facts more than emotion
- Equates with “libertarian”, “Constitutionalist”, “Republican” (mostly)
Progressivism invokes ideas of…
- Protester, seditionist
- Open borders
- Equal outcomes
- Forced wealth redistribution
- “Social justice” as a ruse to promote forced equality of outcomes
- Opposition to effective self defense, especially via use of guns
- Honors victimhood, protecting desires to do nothing productive
- Intolerant of most opposing views, often with violence, while it calls for “tolerance”
- Atheist (mostly), against traditional morality and families; reliance on government to take away from the “haves” to give to the “have nots”.
- Perception of Islam as an oppressed “religion of peace”
- Promotes distorting our language: Homosexual becomes “gay”; believers in morality become “intolerant”, those against evil behavior become “haters”; titles of legislation are purposely misleading such as “’Affordable’ Health Care” actually becoming unaffordable for many.
- Higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government
- Use of emotion more than facts
- Equates with Socialism, Communism, liberalism, Democrat, RINO
HERE is an article that further discusses problems with the Social Justice movement.
* I could argue that even “equal opportunity” policy of our federal government is a giant step toward social justice. Affirmative action legislation, for example, is a form of reverse discrimination. It takes opportunity away from those who have earned it or who are best qualified, and give it to those who have not earned it or who are less qualified. Equal opportunity is an “equal outcome” policy in sheep’s clothing.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
An invasion force, a virtual army of over 7,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, is hellbent to illegally cross the US border. Along the way they break laws and destroy obstacles in their path. So far they have illegally entered Mexico, and as of October 23, they have 1,000 miles to go to the closest US border crossing.
In fact, Mexican news outlets HERE are now reporting that there are over 14,000 who are part of the march north.The fake news on main stream media puts their misleading, emotional spin on the whole corrupt affair with their selective photography and misleading interviews.
Here are two examples:
While showing the 7,000-mostly-man march, ABC Evening News reported,
“Trump, meanwhile, in a series of tweets asserted that "criminals and unknown Middle Easterners" are amid the crowd, for which he offered no evidence. ”
To demonstrate that Trump is a liar, ABC switched over to their Latin reporter, Bio Benítez, who they proudly claim was dispatched into the middle of the mob, where he interviewed a very sweet woman and her son to prove that Trump was wrong.
Or could it possibly be true that ABC News performed a selective, well scripted slander of Trump out of their leftist play book by picking out one of the very few women and children in the mob of over 80% men?
ABC ignored this headline from two days earlier:
100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to U.S.
Here is more of the story from Judicial Watch:
In a startling revelation, Guatemala’s president announced in the country’s largest newspaper that nearly 100 ISIS terrorists have been apprehended in the impoverished Central American nation. Why should Americans care about this? A caravan of Central American migrants is making its way north. Let’s not forget that Guatemala is one of the countries that bombarded the U.S. with illegal immigrant minors under Barack Obama’s open border free-for-all. They came in droves from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala through the Mexican border and for years Uncle Sam rolled out the welcome mat offering housing, food, medical treatment and a free education
A terrorist could have easily slipped in considering the minors, coined Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), were not properly vetted and some turned out to be violent gangbangers who went on to commit heinous crimes in their adopted land of opportunity. In fact, the nation’s most violent street gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), was energized by the barrage of UACs. The Texas Department of Public Safety even issued a report documenting how the MS-13 emerged as a top tier gang in the state thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that came with the UACs. At the time more than 60,000 UACs—many with criminal histories—had stormed into the U.S. in a matter of months. Tens of thousands more eventually made it north.
Much more evidence exists of Middle Easterners and non-Latin elements are part of this invasion as reported by Laura Ingraham below:
Women and children are positioned near the front of the marching mob as “human shields” to intimidate police and to present a wonderful pro-migrant, but false, photo op.
Does ABC care about this? Apparently not. They would rather use their emotion-laden air time to slander our President.
Here is another example of Fake News from the left-leaning Associated Press. In a recent report they highlighted quotes from fellow leftists, in highly emotional fashion:
““It is a shame that a president so powerful uses this caravan for political ends,” said Irineo Mujica of the group Pueblo Sin Fronteras — People Without Borders — which works to provide humanitarian aid to migrants.”
Political ends? My God, this is a freakin’ illegal invasion by a lawless army! The AP report continues…
“Some have questioned the timing so close to the vote and whether some political force was behind it, though by all appearances it began as a group of about 160 who decided to band together in Honduras for protection and snowballed as they moved north.
“No one is capable of organizing this many people,” Mujica said, adding that there are only two forces driving them: “hunger and death.”
I’ll add several more “forces driving them”:
- Free American welfare
- Free American medical care
- Free American education
- Free American meals
- For some unknown number,
- an opportunity to terrorize our nation
- an opportunity to rape, steal, and kill
- an opportunity to expand their cartels and peddle drugs
The AP was so kind as to send in a team of their emotion pandering leftist journalists to further report this:
A team of AP journalists traveling with the caravan for more than a week has spoken with Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans, but has not met any Middle Easterners, who Trump suggested were “mixed in” with the Central American migrants.
This coming from “a team of AP journalists”, likely comprised of 20-somethings sympathetic to this event or who were likely incapable of distinguishing a “Middle Easterner” from a “Middle Martian.”
Here is more selective interviewing:
Ana Luisa Espana, a laundry worker from Chiquimula, Guatemala, joined the caravan as she saw it pass through her country.
Even though the goal is to reach the U.S. border, she said: “We only want to work and if a job turns up in Mexico, I would do it. We would do anything, except bad things.”
Denis Omar Contreras, a Honduran-born caravan leader also with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, said accusations that the caravan is harboring terrorists should stop.
“There isn’t a single terrorist here,” Contreras said. “We are all people from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. And as far as I know there are no terrorists in these four countries, at least beyond the corrupt governments.”
Not a single terrorist in the army of 7,500. He would know. I’m sure he did a security check on all 7,500 hundred of them. And he certainly has no bias; no axe to grind. Certainly not.
And there you have it, from the unbiased, squeaky clean Associated Press, with emphasis on the first syllable of their name.
Thank God for Trump who has the kahunas to state facts not driven by blind deceptive emotion – and who hopes to defend US citizens from a lawless, blood-sucking hoard.
Or is it kinder and gentler to suggest “there are many fine [lawbreaking] folks in that group [army] heading north. It is highly unlikely [likely] that there are any [likely hundreds of] bad people [MS-13; ISIS; pedophiles; ex-cons] among the poor migrants [army well-funded by someone] who just want a place to work and be family [aka Honduran mafia][suck blood].
PS: For those who question my use of the term “army” when referring to this group of “walkers”, I offer you this further explanation:
When a large mass of organized people – e.g. 7,500 to 10,000 - comprised of foreign, non-citizens, who along the way violate laws and destroy property, with intent to illegally enter another nation and further intent to consume that nation's resources with an unknown significant number likely a criminal or terrorist element, heck yes it is an invading army. There is little significant difference between walking and marching. The results will be the same as if they were a literal invading army.
Definition of “army”: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare. “Warfare” means “Armed conflict. Military operations marked by a specific characteristic: guerrilla warfare; chemical warfare [in this case illegally breaking down barriers and or crossing borders with intent to influence or control the defending nation and subjugate its resources.]. A state of disharmony or conflict.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
I’ve frequently expressed my hope that churches would more directly promote Biblical truths that impact the moral lapses in our culture. A recent blog HERE listed all the things that sermons scrupulously avoid. Repeated below is a list of what most churches avoid discussing to avoid offending…
Don’t discuss homosexuality. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss gay marriage. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss abortion. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss out of wedlock pregnancies. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss the government’s incentive sapping welfare system. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss excessive reliance on government entitlements. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss the evils of Islam. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss the overblown role of government that displaces personal and church responsibilities. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss rampant illegal immigration. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss patriotism and building a strong nation. It might offend someone.
Don’t discuss the Christian foundations of our nation. It might offend someone.
It is not unusual for churches to take several weeks – virtually hours worth of sermons - to elaborate on a few verses of Scripture. I’ll use the first 9 verses of Philippians, potentially the subject of 2 or 3 sermons, as an example:
1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons[a]:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. 8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
Show me one word, phrase or verse in those 9 verses that noticeably or specifically addresses ANY of the cultural or governance issues facing our nation today. “Good works”, sure. “Pray with joy”, good. “Love may abound”, right. “Pure and blameless”, absolutely.
Some will suggest that these noble but vague admonitions are enough to get us on the right track toward addressing the moral problems facing our culture. I will suggest that such noble, but vague, admonitions constitute nothing more than hoping for subliminal assimilation and eventual application to our cultural lapses. We are expecting people to use their imaginations to somehow apply these ideals to specifics amidst the hundreds of hours of explicit contradictory media we are exposed to every day.
Stated another way, we are asking people who listen to a half hour sermon comprised of highly generalized admonitions to overcome much larger quantities of explicit exposure to liberal and immoral media and entertainment.
I suggest that the Christian thing to do – not the Democrat or Republican thing to do – is for the Church to relate these fine admonitions, in unmistakable terms and examples, to the the things the Church today seems hell-bent on avoiding (see my list, above). Every one of the moral lapses in our nation that I list above are addressed in Scripture in some form or another. Sometimes those clear Biblical positions are discounted with the excuse that the Bible has conflicting sections or is subject to various interpretations. True. Truth can be distorted or misapplied. Sure, many people believe the Bible is just fables. But it is the responsibility of the Church to apply these sound Biblical principles to our lives and our culture in ways that minimize the need for subliminal assimilation – vague impressions without explicit guidance.
Here are excerpts from earlier blogs that elaborate on this point:
These are all components of what many Church leaders define as “politics”, discussion of which is to be avoided at all costs. Off limits. Don’t cause dissension. Don’t offend. Let’s avoid these topics so we can attract more members – more potential “converts” or more revenue. This “big tent” priority sounds more like the aspiration of a political party than a legitimate priority of the Church.
The whole Bible, from beginning to end, discusses the relationships between God, governments, and mankind. It begins with the first interactions between Adam and Eve and God, with Satan as the foreshadow of government: The antagonist; the interloper. The relationship between God, the people, the Laws, the Judges and the Kings continues throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament brings about a cleansing from oppressive Laws through Jesus Christ. It renews the spirit of the personal relationship between God and the individual which was intended from the beginning. Throughout, it continues to demonstrate the tug of war between our innate evil tendencies and what God desires of us as a “higher law”, superior to all the laws created by either secular or religious laws.
But the modern Church appears to prefer to ignore these themes. It prefers justifying our surrender to the culture and government overreach, declaring its overly broad definition of “politics” as taboo; off limits.
Instead, the Church finds a comfortable corner of Scripture concerning faith, personal salvation, and how much better we will all feel. Sin? What’s that? Can it even be defined anymore since such a large part of the Church not merely excuses but embraces what was formerly universally understood to be sin. Without acknowledgement of “sin”, how can there be forgiveness and reconciliation? Then who needs Christ? Wow, we are now free from the constraints of religion. Imagine, as John Lennon did.
And now, whether a misquote or a revelation from an apostate, an official of the Catholic Church has proclaimed “there is no hell” after earlier excusing himself from criticism of rampant pedophilia in the Church with “who am I to judge.”
Without a “hell” there is no constraint. Both individuals and governments can do whatever they please. Wipe away all sense of right and wrong, don’t judge, and we have the ultimate clean slate for us to be made in the image of government instead of in the image of God. Who needs God if there is no sin and no hell? This is the ultimate path to Communism, the “ideal” that has led to more dictatorships, more death, and more loss of freedom than any other ideology with the exception of Islam.
The Church is allowing the culture to destroy it by its silence.
And from one of my 50 favorite websites, American Vision, here is a worthwhile article titled “Should Preachers Address Politics from the Pulpit.” It touches on something about preaching “the whole counsel of God.” Modern churches should try it some time.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
I attended a breakfast at a local restaurant with men from a Baptist Church in “mostly” conservative rural western North Carolina.
The two men across from me were discussing some unfortunate event when I flippantly mentioned that someone will blame it on Trump or on global warming.
That perked up the as yet unknown liberal seated next to me who pointedly asked me – “so you don’t believe in global warming?”
I responded with “actually there is cyclical global warming, but unlike most on the left, I don’t think human’s have a significant impact. The solar cycles have much more influence.”
He persisted with “so you don’t mind industries that destroy the environment.” He mentioned and dwelt on decades-old deforestation from pollutants downwind from some factories.
“That is a bit of a red herring”, I answered. “I don’t believe in shutting down entire industries or depressing our economy based on half-baked environmental hunches. Yes, industries should be sensibly regulated, like the coal industry, with appropriate pollutant-trapping devices, but the Obama administration wanted to go to extremes based on overly presumptuous and arrogant ‘science’.” And the clincher: Pollutants from smoke stacks killing nearby vegetation has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change.’ It is simply a poison applied to a plant, like a weed killer. Consequently, his challenging comments were ‘red herrings’ on several levels.
Tactic One of Liberals: Red Herrings - something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. In this case it was an extreme, accusatory gesture.
This liberal’s “red herring” was an extreme absurdity, that I wanted to “destroy the environment because I didn’t believe in US human-caused global warming.” My rebuttal was the fact of the left’s actions to destroy industries based on overly-presumptuous and arrogant science. It is fact that Obama virtually shut down the coal industry for the sake of his dubious global warming presumptions.
A bit later the conversation drifted toward our little downtown, and the problem of parking. I mentioned a city parking lot that charges $3.00 per hour – and the likelihood that such charges hurt local businesses. I expressed hope the City would provide free parking to benefit businesses that already pay a fair amount of City taxes.
The liberal chimed in: “There are only 600 residences in the City that pay taxes – that’s too few to support that!”
I had to remind his tepid memory that 10 seconds earlier I was talking about businesses that pay taxes, not residences. He deflected from and twisted the meaning of my example.
Tactic Two of Liberals: Deflection – changing key words or ideas to discredit yours. Deflection is a diversionary tactic so that one’s own point of view, one’s facts, remain unchallenged and unquestioned. I was speaking of businesses paying taxes; he switched to word to “residents” paying taxes.
What made this experience less than warm and fuzzy was that this man has been in the area for decades, and had served on various boards and commissions for a number of years. The words “loud”, “arrogant” and “over-bearing” came to mind upon reflection of this unpleasant and challenging encounter.
These are the tactics of liberals.
Oh, I need to mention, while the outlying rural areas of the County are conservative, the little City itself is very liberal.
___________________Lessons learned: Not all Baptists are conservative and little Cities in the country can be quite liberal.