Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Do you dislike “politics” being discussed in church?

Do you believe it is inappropriate for “politics” to enter into sermons, announcements from the pulpit, or Christian prayer?  Most churches avoid such topics like the plague.  And in the rare church that mentions anything that can be construed as “politics” there will invariably be those who are put off by such mention, believing that any reference to anything related to politics is inappropriate inside a church.

There are two problems with this intolerance of political talk in the church.

One problem is the definition of “politics.”  The other is a lack of understanding of the content, context, and message of the Bible.

First, the definition:

No, it does not mean “many blood sucking insects fastened to the body”, as in “many ticks”, although politicians can come very close to that definition.

Webster defines politics as “the art or science of government.”  A broader definition is “actions or activities concerned with achieving and using power in a country or society.”  (Collins English Dictionary)  Closely related to politics is power and authority: Who has the power and authority over whom.

These definitions are much different than popular usage of the term which too often includes name calling, lies, and greedy agendas of politicians, special interests, and yes, voters.  These popularized examples of “politics” are as much a perversion of the term as “homosexual” is a perversion of the word “gay.”

With the Webster and Collins definitions in mind, lets look at politics in the context of the Bible.

First of all, the Old Testament is full of concepts relating to governance.  First it was governance by judges, then by kings.  The goodness and faithfulness of the subjects that sanctioned those judges and kings waxed and waned throughout the Old Testament history of Israel.  The major themes revolved around the extent that both the leaders and the people were faithful to or rebelled against God.  Should we be unconcerned about how faithful or faithless our leaders and fellow voters are today?

And then we have Bible prophecy.  The biggie that comes to mind is Isaiah 9:6-7:  “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.  And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever.”

There are dozens more examples like this.

And in the New Testament (and in the Old), we have the dynamic tension between obeying government versus obeying God. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  The problem is, we ignore what belongs to God.  Acts 4:18-20 speaks to this problem by saying: “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "’Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

The whole Bible, the whole function of God, is to teach us who has power and authority over whom; who governs whom; what is the ideal nature of that government.  The Bible is a book of governance.

Benjamin Franklin, addressing the President of the Constitutional Convention, declared: "I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, That God governs in the affairs of men!” Dang politics!  There it is again – God “governing” in the affairs of men.  Too bad we don’t have more of that – the “God governing” part.

But discuss the failures of our culture or problems with our government during church and all hell breaks loose, or at least, a few whispers about “oh, here he goes again with ‘politics’.”

If there is any problem in the Church, it is discussing too little politics, not too much.  And no, the excuse about losing the church’s tax exempt status is bogus.  We are so far from crossing that line that the danger is irrelevant and such thought foolish.

____________________

Coming soon:  What “political” topics are ripe for discussion in Christian Churches.

Friday, October 18, 2019

The alleged crime of quid pro quo…

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
"favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something"
______________

International relations 101 quiz – Question #1:

Has the United States EVER given millions or billions worth of equipment or dollars to another nation without expecting SOMETHING in return?

Answer:  No, we never did that.  We have ALWAYS expected something in return.

Yet, our corrupt, leftist. Trump-hating media would like us to believe that a quid pro quo is something new, and that all quid pro quos are a crime.  They use the norm as a perverted excuse to demonize our President.

Beyond that brazen hypocrisy is the fact that not all quid pro quos are equal.  Most are for the common good, like commitments to improve freedoms or requests to investigate crimes or corruption in exchange for help in defending a nation.  Some other quid pro quos may be for personal gain or to further corruption.

If there was any overt quid pro quo in the case of Trump and Ukraine, which is debatable at best, it was to urge Ukraine to investigate the corrupt overt quid pro quo committed by sleazy Joe Biden (and his not so pure son) and the corrupt Obama administration.

Such are the distortions perpetrated by the corrupt Democrat party and many never-Trumper fair weather fiends in the RINO party heartily joined by the equally corrupt media.

A highly respected morning radio commentator, Bob Rose, on a local Gainesville/Ocala, Florida, radio station (WSKY) described what most of us already know to be true.  While he accurately reports and discusses the news of the day, he noted that ABC News, the network source of national news on his station, reports the same news and events with a totally opposite spin, using innuendo and less than subtle distortions of fact to promote their leftist agenda.  He noted that his audience has complained about the station's bipolar political personality, object to it, and plead for the station to jettison ABC  as the provider of the distorted version of the news.

NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, and most other mainstream news and social media sites are all pretending that quid pro quos are a crime that only applies to Donald Trump.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

The MSM is complicit in slandering the President on so many levels…

Here is one of hundreds of examples that can be given to show the bias of the mainstream (I.e. liberal, progressive, socialist, lying) media against President Trump – this particular topic being Trump’s phone conversation with the President of Ukraine.

This hit piece is from the New York Times of September 26, 2019, with the headline…
Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House

Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Julian E. Barnes

_______________________________

The Times:  “WASHINGTON — The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.”

____________________________________

Note the phrase “who revealed”.  The phrase “who revealed” presumes that undisputed facts follow.  In any other news story, such a presumption is suppressed, and the word “alleges” is used.  In this case the New York Times, and other similar leftist media outlets rush to judgement, breaking journalistic protocol, and agree with the secretive, anonymous whistle blower before facts are known. 

a black sign with white letters: The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The whistle-blower is a C.I.A. officer, people familiar with the matter said.© Doug Mills The New York Times The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The whistle-blower is a C.I.A. officer, people familiar with the matter said.

________________________________

The Times: “The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.”

_________________________________

The Times fails to question why this CIA operative was in the White House to begin with.  Was he a spy for the deep state?  For the Democrat Party"?  Or for an anti-American foreign interest?

______________________

The Times:  “The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.”

_____________________________

The Times presumes a “mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain” by Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s new President.  Must corruption in a foreign country by US officials be dismissed and ignored just because a member of the family involved in such corruption is running for political office in the United States?

And here is the real gem, below:  A threat against anyone who reveals the identity of the whistle blower:

______________________________

The Times:  “Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.

“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said Andrew Bakaj, his lead counsel. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

“A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that protecting the whistle-blower was his office’s highest priority. “We must protect those who demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace,” Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the whistle-blower’s identity.”

____________________________________

Is publishing information about the whistle blower dangerous for the whistle blower, or more dangerous to those who reveal his identity?  An interesting question given it is proffered by the CIA.

The whistle blower is attempting to take down the President of the United States – attempting to hide under the shield of anonymity while he slanders our President.    In this case, the so-called “whistle blower laws” do NOT serve the public interest.  With all due respect for the Director of National Intelligence, in this case the identity of the whistle blower should NOT be protected and his sources of second and third hand hearsay information should be made public.

What ever happened to our cherished legal principle of the accused being able to face his accuser?  The citizens who voted for and continue to love and support our president deserve to know who the accusers are, and to understand the accusers’ motives.

One more point from Steve Scalise via Breitbart:

A bureaucrat framed as a “whistleblower” by assorted news media outlets “doesn’t meet the standard of a whistleblower,” said Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) in a Thursday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow. 


Nope.  Not when they only have second or third hand hearsay to convey.

He also mentions that the lawyer for the so-called “whistle blower” has been a donor to the Joe Biden campaign.  Fancy that.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

The Values of SOTB Immigrants Will Destroy Our Nation…

Believing that immigrants from South of the Border (SOTB) share the values that fostered our nations freedoms and prosperity just because they are mostly Catholic and appear to be “family oriented” is wishful thinking.

The great majority, if not all, come from socialist-governed nations, from a socialist imbued culture, and are steeped in a religion based on a socialist-influenced distortion of Bible interpretation.

A case in point is the current Catholic Pope.  He carried to the Vatican the baggage of a life influenced by socialist and one-world thinking.  His mantra, like that of the average US leftist, is “no borders”, unlimited immigration, government largess via taking from the rich and giving to the poor aka government-coerced redistribution of wealth.  This is NOT Biblical.   Add to that is his delusion that Islam is a religion of peace, Allah is the same God, and we are basically all one big happy family.  Is it a coincidence that the left, which tends to be either atheist or apostate Christians, believe the same thing?  That requires a grossly distorted and unfaithful view of the Christian religion.

The poverty and corruption of most SOTB nations affirms the reality of the stunting and debilitating influence of a socialist mindset.

This reality applies to both legal and illegal immigrants when the numbers of either outpace the ability to assimilate – which has undeniably occurred.  The incoming masses, legal and illegal, are polluting and distorting not only our form of government, but the orthodox interpretation of Scripture relied upon by our nation’s fathers that served as the basis for our freedoms and prosperity.

OK, now that I have offended the sensibilities of many of my 2 or 3 readers, I invite you to read the following short piece (10 pages or so) titled “Rendering Unto Caesar:  Was Jesus a Socialist” by Lawrence W. Reed. This piece provides a well informed, well-reasoned Biblical perspective of the difference between governmentally-coerced giving (tax/redistribution)  and voluntary giving from the heart. 

Before you delve into the many Biblical examples that Lawrence Reed provides, do you want to guess which side of things Jesus really came down on?  Was it the breezy Robin Hood aka “socialist” mentality or not?  And for those who believe that the Bible can be interpreted to prove anything the reader wants to prove, that is an erroneous and dangerous belief.  In fact, that would be much closer to “out of context distortion of Scripture”, also known as apostacy. 

Read on, below, and draw your own conclusions…

Rendering Unto Caesar:  Was Jesus a Socialist

Lawrence Reed

Courtesy of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).  More at https://fee.org/about

On June 16, 1992, London’s Daily Telegraph reported this astonishingly bold remark by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: “Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.”1

Perhaps we should cut Gorbachev some slack here. A man who climbed his way to the top of a stridently atheist empire with a sorry track record on human rights was probably not a Bible scholar. But surely he knew that if socialism is nothing more than the seeking of “a better life for mankind,” then Jesus could hardly have been its first advocate; he would, in fact, be just one of several billion of them.

You don’t have to be a Christian to appreciate the errors in the Gorbachev canard. You can be a person of any faith or no faith at all. You just have to appreciate facts, history, and logic. You can even be a socialist—but one with open eyes—and realize that Jesus wasn’t in your camp.

Let’s first define the term socialism, which the Gorbachev comment only obfuscates.

Socialism isn’t happy thoughts, nebulous fantasies, mere good intentions, or children sharing their Halloween candy with one another. In a modern political, economic, and social context, socialism isn’t voluntary like the Girl Scouts. Its central characteristic is the concentration of power to forcibly achieve one or more (or usually all) of these purposes: central planning of the economy, government ownership of

 1. London Daily Telegraph, June 16, 1992.

property, and the redistribution of wealth. No amount of “we do it all for you” or “it’s for your own good” or “we’re helping people” rhetoric can erase that.

What makes socialism socialism is the fact that you can’t opt out, a point eloquently made here by David Boaz of the Cato Institute:

“One difference between libertarianism [a personal choice and liberty-based system] and socialism is that a socialist society can’t tolerate groups of people practicing freedom, but a libertarian society can comfortably allow people to choose voluntary socialism.

If a group of people—even a very large group—wanted to purchase land and own it in common, they would be free to do so. The libertarian legal order would require only that no one be coerced into joining or giving up his property.”  2

Government, whether big or small, is the only entity in society that possesses a legal monopoly over the use of force. The more force it initiates against people, the more it subordinates the choices of the ruled to the whims of their rulers—that is, the more socialist it becomes. A reader may object to this description by insisting that to “socialize” something is to simply “share” it and “help people” in the process, but that’s baby talk. It’s how you do it that defines the system. Do it through the use of force, and it’s socialism. Do it through persuasion, free will, and respect for property rights, and it’s something else entirely.

So was Jesus really a socialist? More to the main focus of this essay, did he call for the state to redistribute income to either punish the rich or to help the poor?

I first heard “Jesus was a socialist” and “Jesus was a redistributionist” some forty years ago. I was puzzled. I had always understood Jesus’s message to be that the most important decision a person would make in his earthly lifetime was to accept or reject him as savior. That decision was clearly to be a very personal one—an individual and voluntary choice. He

2. David Boaz, “The Coming Libertarian Age,” Cato Policy Report (Jan.–Feb. 1997).

constantly stressed inner, spiritual renewal as far more critical to well-being than material things. I wondered, “How could the same Jesus advocate the use of force to take stuff from some and give it to others?” I just couldn’t imagine him supporting a fine or a jail sentence for people who don’t want to fork over their money for food-stamp programs.

“Wait a minute!” you say. “Didn’t Jesus answer, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s when the Pharisees tried to trick him into denouncing a Roman-imposed tax?” Yes indeed, he did say that. It’s found first in the Gospel of Matthew, 22:15–22, and later in the Gospel of Mark, 12:13–17. But notice that everything depends on just what truly did belong to Caesar and what didn’t, which is actually a rather powerful endorsement of property rights. Jesus said nothing like “It belongs to Caesar if Caesar simply says it does, no matter how much he wants, how he gets it, or how he chooses to spend it.”

The fact is, one can scour the Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb and find nary a word from Jesus that endorses the forcible redistribution of wealth by political authorities. None, period.

“But didn’t Jesus say he came to uphold the law?” you ask. Yes, in Matthew 5:17–20 he declares, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”3 In Luke 24:44, he clarifies this when he says, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” He was not saying, “Whatever laws the government passes, I’m all for.” He was speaking specifically of the Mosaic law (primarily the Ten Commandments) and the prophecies of his own coming.

Consider the eighth of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not steal.” Note the period after the word “steal.” This admonition does not read, “You shall not steal unless the other guy has more than you do” or “You shall not steal unless you’re absolutely positive you can spend it better than the guy who earned it.” Nor does it say, “You shall not steal, but it’s OK to hire someone else,

3. All Bible citations are from the New International Version (NIV).

like a politician, to do it for you.”

In case people were still tempted to steal, the tenth commandment is aimed at nipping in the bud one of the principal motives for stealing (and for redistribution): “You shall not covet.” In other words, if it’s not yours, keep your fingers off of it.

In Luke 12:13–15, Jesus is confronted with a redistribution request. A man with a grievance approaches him and demands, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus replies thusly: “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you? Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (emphasis added). Wow! He could have equalized the wealth between two men with a wave of his hand, but he chose to denounce envy instead.

“What about the story of the Good Samaritan? Doesn’t that make a case for government welfare programs or redistribution?” you inquire. The answer is an emphatic “No!” Consider the details of the story, as recorded in Luke 10:29–37: A traveler comes upon a man at the side of a road. The man had been beaten and robbed and left half-dead. What did the traveler do? He helped the man himself, on the spot, with his own resources. He did not say, “Write a letter to the emperor” or “Go see your social worker” and walk on. If he had done that, he would more likely be known today as the “Good-for-nothing Samaritan”—if he were remembered at all.

The Good Samaritan story makes a case for helping a needy person voluntarily out of love and compassion. There’s no suggestion that the Samaritan “owed” anything to the man in need or that it was the duty of a distant politician to help out with other people’s money.

Moreover, Jesus never called for equality of material wealth, “ Jesus never called for equality of material wealth, let alone the use of political force to accomplish it, even in situations of dire need. let alone the use of political force to accomplish it, even in situations of dire need. In his book, Biblical Economics, theologian R. C. Sproul Jr. notes that Jesus “wants the poor to be helped” but not at gunpoint, which is essentially what government force is all about:

“I am convinced that political and economic policies involving the forced redistribution of wealth via government intervention are neither right nor safe. Such policies are both unethical and ineffective…. On the surface it would seem that socialists are on God’s side. Unfortunately, their programs and their means foster greater poverty even though their hearts remain loyal to eliminating poverty. The tragic fallacy that invades socialist thinking is that there is a necessary, causal connection between the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor. Socialists assume that one man’s wealth is based on another man’s poverty; therefore, to stop poverty and help the poor man, we must have socialism.” 4

To Sproul’s comment I would add this addendum: sometimes a person becomes wealthy wholly or in part because of his political connections. He secures special favors or subsidies from government, or uses government to disable his competitors. No consistently logical thinker who favors liberty and property rights, whether he’s Christian or not, supports such practices. They are forms of theft, and their source is political power—the very debilitating thing that progressives and socialists advocate more of.

Legitimate wealth is derived voluntarily. It comes from the creation of value and mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange. It does not spring from political power that redistributes in reverse, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Economic entrepreneurs are a boon to society; political entrepreneurs are another animal entirely. We all benefit when a Steve Jobs invents

4. R. C. Sproul, Jr. , Biblical Economics: A Commonsense Guide to Our Daily Bread (Bristol, TN: Draught Horse Press, 2002), p. 138.

an iPhone; but when the Cowboy Poetry Festival in Nevada gets a federal grant because of Senator Harry Reid, or when Goldman Sachs gets a taxpayer bailout, millions get hurt and must pay for it.

Socialists and their progressive brethren are fond of citing the occasion (found in Matthew 21:12–13) of Jesus driving the “moneychangers” from the Temple in Jerusalem. Out of context, it would appear he didn’t approve of capitalist buying and selling. But note the location where this incident occurred. It was in the holiest of places, a place of worship. It was God’s house. Those who were using it for a totally different purpose were defiling it. Jesus’s admonition was not to stop buying and selling—which would flout many other things he said elsewhere in the scriptures. It was to stop doing these things in a house of prayer, where they were out of character and inappropriate. He never drove a “moneychanger” from a marketplace or from a bank. No one should go to a funeral with an accordion and strike up a rendition of “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Likewise, no one should abuse the purpose or the occasion of worship in God’s house either.

What about the reference in the book of Acts to the early Christians selling their worldly goods and sharing communally in the proceeds? That sounds like a progressive utopia. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that those early Christians did not sell everything they had and were not commanded or expected to do so. They continued to meet in their own private homes, for example. In his contributing chapter to the 2014 book For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty, Art Lindsley of the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics writes,

“Again, in this passage from Acts, there is no mention of the state at all. These early believers contributed their goods freely, without coercion, voluntarily. Elsewhere in Scripture we see that Christians are even instructed to give in just this manner, freely, for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). There is plenty of indication that private property rights were still in effect. 5”

5. Anne Bradley and Art Lindsley, eds., For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty. 

It may disappoint progressives to learn that Jesus’s words and deeds repeatedly upheld such critically important, capitalist virtues as contract, profit, and private property. For example, consider his parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30). Of several men in the story, the one who takes his money and buries it is reprimanded while the one who invests and generates the largest return is applauded and rewarded.

Though not central to the story, good lessons in supply and demand, as well as the sanctity of contract, are apparent in Jesus’s parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1–16). A landowner offers a wage to attract workers for a day of urgent work picking grapes. Near the end of the day, he realizes he has to quickly hire more and to get them, he offers for an hour of work what he previously had offered to pay the first workers for the whole day. When one of those who worked all day complained, the landowner answered, “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

The well-known “Golden Rule” comes from the lips of Jesus himself, in Matthew 7:12. “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” In Matthew 19:19, Jesus says, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Nowhere does he even remotely suggest that we should dislike a neighbor because of his wealth or seek to take that wealth from him. If you don’t want your property confiscated (and most people don’t), then clearly you’re not supposed to confiscate somebody else’s.

Christian doctrine cautions against greed. So does present day economist Thomas Sowell: “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Using the power of government to grab another person’s property isn’t exactly altruistic. Jesus never even implied that accumulating wealth through peaceful commerce was in any way wrong; he simply implored people to not allow wealth to rule them or corrupt their character. That’s why his greatest apostle, Paul, didn’t say money was evil in the famous reference in 1 Timothy 6:10. Here’s what Paul actually said: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (emphasis added). Indeed, progressives themselves have not selflessly abandoned money, for it is other people’s money, especially that of “the rich,” that they’re always clamoring for.

In Matthew 19:23, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” A redistributionist might say, “Eureka! There it is! He doesn’t like rich people” and then stretch the remark beyond recognition to justify one rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul scheme after another. But this admonition is entirely consistent with everything else Jesus says. It’s not a call to envy the rich, to take from the rich, or to give “free” cell phones to the poor. It’s a call to character. It’s an observation that some people let their wealth rule them, rather than the other way around. It’s a warning about temptations (which come in many forms, not just material wealth). Haven’t we all noticed that among the rich, as is equally true among the poor, you have both good and bad people? Haven’t we all seen some rich celebrities corrupted by their fame and fortune, while others among the rich live perfectly upstanding lives? Haven’t we all seen some poor people who allow their poverty to demoralize and enervate them, while others among the poor view it as an incentive to improve themselves and their communities?

When the first version of this essay appeared in January 2015, several “progressive” friends raised Romans 13:1–7 as evidence contrary to my thesis. (Similar sentiments are expressed in 1 Peter 2:13–20 and Titus 3:1–3.) In the Romans 13 passage, the apostle Paul urges submission to the governing authorities and warns against rebellion. He also says if you owe taxes, pay your taxes. So a socialist or “progressive” of today might say this blesses all sorts of things including redistribution, a welfare state, or whatever the state wants to do either for you or to you. This is quite a leap.

Here, as in all other parts of the Bible, context is important. Paul was speaking to early Christians in an environment seething with anti-Roman feeling. He undoubtedly did not want the growth of Christianity to be sidetracked by violence or other provocations against the Romans that would be brutally repressed. He was attempting to set the people’s sights on what he regarded as higher things of greater immediate importance.

But it’s a larger error to extrapolate what Paul said to justify one particular view of the role of government, namely a “progressive” or “socialist” one. Suppose the “governing authorities” run a minimal state with Constitutional strictures and guarantees of personal liberties and private property. Suppose, furthermore, that the rules of that arrangement clearly advise the governed, “We protect you from aggressions against your rights and property but we don’t otherwise give you free stuff. You’re entitled to your liberties; to engage in private, voluntary charity and commerce, to deal with each other peacefully; to live as you choose so long as you each do no harm to another. But we in government will not rob Peter to pay Paul.” There is nothing in Romans 13:1–7 that says these “governing authorities” are owed any less respect than if they were welfare-state redistributionists.

So clearly, the verses of Romans 13:1–7 assert the legitimacy of government per se but do not ordain what today’s “progressives” and socialists demand. The Bible, in fact, is full of stories about people who bravely and righteously resisted the overreach of governments. Does anyone really believe that if Jesus had been preaching just before the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, he would have declared, “Pharaoh demands that you stay, so unpack those bags and get back to work?”

Norman Horn, founder of LibertarianChristians.com, notes that both the Old and New Testaments provide numerous instances of laudatory disobedience to the state:

“Hebrews defying Pharaoh’s decrees to murder their infants (Exodus 1); Rahab lying to the King of Jericho about the Hebrew spies (Joshua 2); Ehud deceiving the king’s ministers and assassinating the king (Judges 3); Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to comply with the king’s decrees, and miraculously saved twice for doing so (Daniel 3 and 6); the Magi from the East disobeying Herod’s direct orders (Matthew 2); and Peter and John choosing to obey God rather than men (Acts 5).” 6

At the risk of belaboring the point, I share these insightful comments from a conversation with my colleague Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education:

“Mary, Jesus, and Joseph fled Bethlehem rather than submit to Herod’s order to kill all infants. If Romans 13 meant that everyone must submit always, Jesus would have been murdered in the weeks after his birth.… Resistance, of course, can be moral. Christianity has inspired resistance to the state throughout history and in modern times, from the American Revolution to the civil rights protests to the Polish resistance against communism. Jesus set the example: he avoided government when he could, resisted in prudent ways when possible, and ultimately complied when he had to.”

The empirical evidence today is overwhelming that, as Montesquieu observed two centuries ago, “Countries are well cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free.”7 Nations possessing the most economic freedom (and the smallest governments) have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than those that engage in socialistic and redistributive practices. The countries with the lowest levels of economic freedom also have the lowest standards of living. Free countries and their people are the greatest charitable givers, whereas on net balance, socialist ones are decisively on the receiving end. Why is this relevant? Because you can’t redistribute anything to anybody if it’s not created by somebody

6. Norman Horn, “New Testament Theology of the State, Part 2,” LibertarianChristians.com, Nov. 28, 2008, http://bit.ly/1ILrguc

7. Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

in the first place, and the evidence strongly suggests that the only lasting thing that socialist and redistributive arrangements do for poor people is give them lots of company.

In Jesus’s teachings and in many other parts of the New Testament, Christians—indeed, all people—are advised to be of “generous spirit,” to care for one’s family, to help the poor, to assist widows and orphans, to exhibit kindness and to maintain the highest character. How all that gets translated into the dirty business of coercive, vote-buying, politically driven redistribution schemes is a problem for prevaricators with agendas. It’s not a problem for scholars of what the Bible actually says and doesn’t say.

Search your conscience. Consider the evidence. Be mindful of facts. Ask yourself: When it comes to helping the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army or at gunpoint to the welfare department?

Jesus was no dummy. He was not interested in the public professions of charitableness in which the legalistic and hypocritical Pharisees were fond of engaging. He dismissed their self-serving, cheap talk. He knew it was often insincere, rarely indicative of how they conducted their personal affairs, and always a dead end with plenty of snares and delusions along the way. It would hardly make sense for him to champion the poor by supporting policies that undermine the process of wealth creation necessary to help them. In the final analysis, he would never endorse a scheme that doesn’t work and is rooted in envy or theft. In spite of the attempts of many modern-day progressives to make him into a welfare-state redistributionist, Jesus was nothing of the sort.

Yet many pastors and church leaders are carelessly perpetuating this lie.

The original source and format for this document is available HERE.

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Unsettling observation about our churches…

I was recently scanning the internet to learn something about various churches in another state.  This new information, along with decades of attending various denominations coupled with my interest in beliefs and practices of churches in general, produced a startling revelation.

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

What the New York Times calls “racist”…

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:

2002

  • 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.

2005

  • 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.

2006

  • 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.

2010

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.

2011

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.

2012

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?

2013

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.

2015

  • 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.Image result for reverse racism

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.

Monday, December 31, 2018

An intentional slander: “Trump’s Wall”

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

Why are many opposed to discussion of “politics” and who most typically are?

Many folks have declared the discussion of politics to be off-limits; impolite; a prohibited topic of discussion, whether at a social event, casual lunch, or during a family visit.  Being among homo sapiens whose predisposition it has been from ages past to classify things, I have asked myself this question:
Why are many opposed to discussion of politics and who are those most likely to oppose? 

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

Not an invasion? Here’s your sign…


There are quite a few folks out there who convinced themselves that the 5,000 to 10,000 Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and unknown others promising to enter our nation illegally is not an invasion.

For this group comprised of liberal media, globalists, never-Trumpers, millennials, progressives, socialists, social justice warriors, Democrats wanting more illicit votes, and those who couldn’t care less about national security or American culture, here’s your sign:

Here are a number of signs that those of average intellect or better would cause one to conclude that this migration is indeed an invasion.
  • 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.
As a further “sign”, here is the FreeDictionary.com definition of invasion:
Definition of “invasion”:

1. (Military) the act of invading with armed forces
2. any encroachment or intrusion: an invasion of rats.
3. the onset or advent of something harmful, esp of a disease
4. (Pathology) pathol the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues
5. (Botany) the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native

The characteristics of this “migration” clearly meet one or more definitions of invasion.

Here is a video from a knowledgeable Judicial Watch expert discussing the nature of this migration:

And of course Snopes and other leftist truth sites claim that there is nothing to see here – anyone who claims there is anyone but good upstanding Hondurans yearning to breath free is merely a “conspiracy theorist.”

To these I say: Here’s your sign.

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

Victimhood tactics of the left…

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.