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.

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.

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."

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.

How the Social Justice agenda distorts words and ideas to slander its opposition…

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…

• Nationalism
• Patriotism
• Strong borders
• Equal opportunity
• Capitalism
• 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…

• Globalism
• 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.

Fake News Distorts Migrant Invasion Via Selective Emotion…

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.

Subliminal Assimilation–Influencing our culture obtusely…

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:

Philippians  (NIV)

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.

HERE is a companion piece on the same topic, titled “Is the Church’s Focus Too Narrow?”.

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.

Conversational Tactics of a Liberal…

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.

FYI: Lies behind ‘global warming’; False science behind ‘global warming’

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.

Misapplied “judge not” justifies censorship…

“Christianity teaches we shouldn’t judge.”  No, not really.  Read the article below which explains why that is a false, out of context, interpretation.

But this myth is used by the left as justification for stifling the ideas, warnings, and dialogue of conservatives, particularly on the internet.  Liberals have co-opted Christian misinterpretations of Scripture to censure our opinions and warnings – our “free speech.”  Just ask conservative organizations and individuals how their ideas were banned by Facebook, PayPal, and others.  It is also mistakenly used by many conservatives to stifle their own otherwise rational opinions and warnings of evil.

Read below to learn how wrong this misinterpretation of “judge not” really is:

“Judge not…”: The most abused verse in Scripture

I participated in a Bible study on Matthew at a Catholic church the other night.
The video-taped teacher quickly glossed over Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be judged.”  Or another translation:  “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.”  He gave a six second reprise of the the common admonition to refrain from judging because we are all sinners and who are we to point out sin in others.

Even the Pope excused his silence about the rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church by proclaiming “Who am I to judge?”  Yikes!

Our post-Christian culture has aborted the real meaning of this verse in favor of abstaining from discernment of right and wrong, good and evil.   This goes a long way in explaining the decline of morality in our nation.

This mistaken interpretation was demonstrated by another class member who said “we should never judge an individual because he has his reasons for doing what he is doing that we may not be aware of.  We should never judge another’s motives.”

Wrong !  Wrong!   Wrong!

This verse needs to be understood in context.  Jesus is addressing the problem of  hypocrites.  Jesus never says “everyone” is a hypocrite.  And not everyone  is a hypocrite.  Even if you believe most people are hypocrites, maybe even ourselves, you probably know some fine people who are not.  He is pointing out that those who ARE hypocrites have no credibility when they call attention to the shortcomings of others.

So, is it ok for the “non-hypocrite” to point out the sins of others – or evil in our nation?  Absolutely.  When we cease being hypocrites – when we take the log out of our own eye - we are then in a position to take the speck out of our brother's eye. (verse 5).  As one commentary states:  “Believers DO have a responsibility to help one another repent of sins, but only after first dealing with their own serious sins.”

And yes, we are called to judge the character and motive of others.  The Holman Bible Dictionary declares:  “The interpretation of Matthew 7:1 that Christians should not make value judgments of the behavior of others is shown to be erroneous by multiple commands in Scripture to do exactly that.”

The Bible is replete with examples of a Godly mandate to judge.  The prophets of the Old Testament surely judged.  Look at Isaiah for example.  Look at Matthew 7:15-20, John 7:24, and 1 Timothy 3:10.  Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:10 called for distinguishing between spirits, evil and otherwise.  Paul in Romans doesn’t hold back in judging homosexuality as sin.  Are we not to judge the behavior and chosen lifestyle of the homosexual?  Or the thief, or the adulterer?

We shouldn’t judge the “motive” of others?  Really?  A finding of guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime requires determination of “motive” in addition to “means” and “opportunity.”  The business person is wise to judge the motive and character of one he chooses as a business partner.
What would become of our culture if…

• We eliminated judging character and morality as a couple of the most important criteria for voting for the best candidate?
• All judges across the land were prohibited from judging because we are all sinners?
• We determined that faithfulness and character in choosing a spouse was off limits?
• Judging character and loyalty as the best reasons for choosing our friends was declared unscriptural?
• We no longer could judge faith, loyalty, and dedication as the basis for choosing leaders in our churches?

This leads to the biggest cancer of all:  Moral relativity.  This is the cultural disease where we believe no one’s actions, words, religion, or politics are better or truer than anyone else’s.  They are all just as good.  They are all just as true.  The Muslim on the plane should not be judged because Islam is no better, no worse than Christianity.  And that Muslim probably doesn’t know any better, just like the child predator may not know any better.   That’s just their beliefs.  Their motives should not be judged.

You’ve GOT to be kidding.

Our rampant erroneous interpretation of Matthew 7:1 denies the concept of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lies.  This is the very thought pattern that is leading this nation into moral decay.  This is why our mainline religious denominations have accepted abortion, gay ministers, and gay marriage.  This is why we are tolerating all manner of vile entertainment and immoral behavior of teenagers and selfish greed among our electorate.

Just as we as a nation must become energy-responsible by adopting the policy of “drill, baby, drill”, we also need to become morally responsible by adopting a personal policy of “judge, baby, judge.”  But we can do this only after we do all we can to build our own character so that we are worthy to put into practice the judging God calls us to do.

Here is another great article on "The Cult of Judge Not."

Who’s Next after Alex Jones?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

There is a modern day version of this Martin Niemöller quote:

First they came for to the Alex Jones types and I did not speak out - because I was not an Alex Jones type.

Then they came for the the Trump supporters, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trump supporter.

Then they came for the Conservatives and Christians, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Conservative or Christian.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Who is “they” in this modern version of Niemoller’s quote?

“They” is the troika of Google, Facebook, and Apple:  The big three of internet domination – among others.  These near-monopolies of internet communications have now gone full bore in defining their own jaded version of “hate speech.”  Their version has become:  Whatever political or social ideology they don’t agree with.  They don’t agree with Alex Jones or his web site “Infowars”, so they ban it.  More HERE. 

How far will these monopolies go to censor speech they don’t agree with.  All the way, apparently.

Is it a coincidence that all of these platforms acted in concert, on the same day, to black out Infowars?  Is Infowars correct?  Is there a “conspiracy.”  Sure looks like it.

And Twitter is just as guilty.  An employee, Sarah Jeong, who now works for the New York Times, posted these racist tweets against whites on Twitter:

A black Conservative, Candace Owens, published the same racist rants on Twitter, but substituted the words “Blacks” for “Whites” and her account was locked out while Sarah’s remained.   Bias much?

Google the name Sarah Jeong and you will find all kinds of defense for “her right” to be racist.

Of course you are familiar with “affirmative action”.  This federal program has been used to discriminate against whites in the areas of housing, jobs, and education for several decades.  Now we have a new twist on affirmative action:  Hate Speech.  It is OK for blacks to be racist against whites on social and news media.  But not the other way around.  That is how affirmative action works.

So, if you are a Conservative, a Christian, a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, or anyone who disagrees with liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, or Islam, woe to you if you attempt to express your thoughts on Facebook, Apple, Twitter, of Google social media platforms.

I am familiar with the unbridled, unabashed bias of the media.  I have been banned by the far left distorted news network ABC now for several months.  I view their 6:30 news only to motivate myself by their incessant anti-Trump bias – to learn how the “other side” operates.  And it ain’t pretty.

Traitor Republicans Bash Trump’s Summit Comments

I can understand uber-liberal media like ABC News (who banished me from posting comments on their news site) trashing Trump’s performance at the Trump/Putin Summit in Helsinki, Finland today.

I can even understand McCain, the chief Republican Trump trasher doing his predictable trashing.

But Newt Gingrich and most other Republicans I do not understand.

First, here is the transcript of what led to the insane media outrage over Trump’s comments.  Note the parts that pertain to “who do you believe”:

REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you want him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.

I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?

Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.

I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.

We heard comments from Trump’s foes that he is a traitor, that Putin has something on Trump, that he was badly beaten by Putin, and more.

But what did Republicans say?  “Shameful, bizarre.”

And Newt Gingrich tweeted:

President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected—-immediately.

I have to add, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

HERE IS AN ARTCILE from “Russia Today” (state propaganda media) on the US POLITICAL response to Trump’s summit comments.

And HERE is a response from Ron Paul, one of the very few positive US comments, also courtesy of Russia Today (not reported by mainstream US media).

Thankfully, there are many on Newt’s Twitter site who see the forest for the trees and aren’t as quick to crucify Trump as the Republican military complex Trump-haters are.

Here are a few examples:

Stonewall Jackson‏ @1776Stonewall

Replying to @newtgingrich

People like you and your Fox News cronies just handed the Democrats a huge victory today, and might have cost us the midterms - and for nothing. Trump did nothing wrong. Give yourself a hand

American Dean ™️ ‏ @SonicDeanBoom 13m13 minutes ago

He damaged NOTHING! Never TRUMPERS are out in droves right now? Is this planned?

David D ‏ @luckydbldd 11m11 minutes ago

AMERICAN WOMAN‏ @SuzanneMoroz1 34m34 minutes ago

Replying to @newtgingrich

Not agreeing with you this time. OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS NEVER LOOKED AT DNC COMPUTERS. A THIRD PARTY DID. HOW CAN THEY MAKE A DECISION IT WAS RUSSIA. SINCE WHEN DO THEY TAKE THE WORD OF A THIRD PARTY!!

Julie Cappiello‏ @julie_cappiello 31m31 minutes ago

So true. Apples and pears trump was talking about Hillary’s emails not the internet crap get real

What should we make of the Republicans and even those who allegedly support Trump?  They are deeply in bed with the “deep state”, the “swamp”, the “military industrial complex”, whatever label you would like to apply to the status quo  - those who make their living off of fear and the perpetuation of enemy status of nations.

Trump is truly an outsider, even to his “allies.”

The Muslim loving John Brennan, former CIA Director under traitor Obama,  proclaimed Trump a traitor and encouraged his cabinet to resign.  Here is what else he posted:

Here is the slippery part, and this is not new.  Some anti-Trumpers are (and have been) suggesting or asserting that Trump is not just a naïve stooge of Russia, but he is a Russian plant, and Putin is his handler.  HERE is the result of a Google search under “Is Trump Controlled by Russia.”  See for yourself.

Before the Summit, here is a headline from New York magazine: 

Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?

If this piece of rumor and innuendo gains traction, we are in for a messy civil war sooner than anyone has predicted.  I can see a reverse of the 50’s and 60’s House Un-American Activities Commission’s hunt for Communists among us.  (by the way – Joseph McCarthy was right.) 

The liberals and conservative have switched roles.  The liberals have historically been the the real Communist sympathizers and enablers.   They are now calling the conservatives, namely Trump, the Communist sympathizer and enabler.  That’s particularly strange since the United States has journeyed further to the left in the last 50 years to become more Russia-like with our over-involved, over-bearing Federal government, and Russia has made more strides to become significantly freer than before.

Trump recognizes these changes.  Most of Washington does not.

It is past time to wake up.  But the leftists will do everything in their power, both legal and illegal, both peacefully and violently, to maintain the hostile status quo.

If there is a significant action among the left and their Republican allies to eliminate Trump from office for these or other excuses, all hell will most certainly break loose.

_____________________

BONUS:  Pat Buchannan’s article titled “Trump Called Off Cold War II” HERE.   http://www.wnd.com/2018/07/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii/

Media as “god”; the people of the nations be damned–the Tommy Robinson example

I came across a telling, arrogant statement from an Associated Press (AP) article about the Trump/Kim summit.  The context of the following quote is the means of Kim’s flight from North Korea to Singapore…

By prominently showing the Air China jet that flew Kim to Singapore, the reports also made no secret of China’s important role behind the scenes. That might not bode so well for Trump, who has expressed some concern about China’s influence.

Not “it might not bode well for the United States” or “it might not bode well for the American people” but it might not bode well for Trump.  The AP depicts this as a Trump versus China thing, caring not at all about the impact on the American people.  They portray Trump as being “out there”, alone, without the support of his nation.

The media, in this case the AP, targets Trump, ignoring the fact that he represents the United States and the American people.  This might seem like a small nit to pick, but it represents the air of superiority and arrogance of the media and its incessant piling on Trump.  These same types of innuendos and slights are legion in most US media – a media that considers itself “world” media; or perhaps more to the point, “god media”, a detached and aloof god at that.

Tommy Robinson,  who for 10 years has been the voice of truth about the Islamic threat in Great Britain, recognizes the huge disconnect between “the people” of his nation and the media/ruler class elite who work hard at suppressing the truth.  In Britain, both the media and government aggressively suppress the truth about Islam and Muhammad to the extent that they jail people who contradict the government line that “Islam is a benign religion of piece”  and that Muhammad was a peace-loving spiritual leader.  And the British media, for the most part, go along with these lies.  Robinson was jailed several times by British authorities for warning about Islam (often under different pretexts) and has been unjustly jailed again for reporting on a court hearing for yet another Islamic terrorist.

In the following video Elsa (who has interviewed dozens of outspoken truthtellers about Islam) interviews Tommy Robinson where he describes the huge disconnect between “the people” and the British government and media.  Together the British government and media suppress the truth of Islam, not giving a damn about the destruction of neighborhoods and communities brought about by their insane immigration policies.  This same problem applies in the US.

More on Tommy Robinson from Elsa…

On May 23rd, I interviewed Tommy Robinson: on people who say it's too late, on himself at 18, on the many lessons he's learned, on some people saying he has the making of a great Prime Minister. Everything looked great. Two days later, on May 25th, the word went out: he had been arrested again. This time, it was for (supposedly) disturbing the peace. He was going about his business of being a reporter - not on the side of those in power.

His arrest brings up thoughts of people like Gandhi and Mandela. Gandhi was arrested over and over. Mandela (unlike Tommy, a true danger) spent 27 years in prison. Both spoke out against those in power, and both demanded change.
Tommy has previously spent 22 weeks in solitary confinement - his choice, to increase his chances of staying alive while being held among violent Islamic offenders, including Islamic murderers. Not a good place to be, when you care about, and speak out about, indigenous British girls targeted by Islamic "grooming" gangs.

There are major differences between Gandhi, Mandela and Tommy. Gandhi was a lawyer - well educated. Mandela was the son of a tribal leader - a prince, one might say.

Tommy is working class. In fact, the mainstream media has smeared him for his class background, for instance as a football hooligan.

The largest difference is that Mandela was arrested for his involvement in major terrorism, with massive amounts of bomb-making material; and he never spoke out against this or against terrorism; instead he kept close to the ANC (the group he was tied to), despite the horrific murders done by ANC people in the name of the ANC. Gandhi was also initially involved in violent activities. (For more on Mandela and Gandhi, search out Stefan Molyneux' excellent videos on The Truth about Mandela, and The Truth about Gandhi.)

Unlike Mandela and Gandhi, from the beginning Tommy has always been for peaceful protest.

He has also always been openly and strongly against racism as well as homophobia - against discrimination against individuals.

His protest has always been against an ideology, Islamic ideology - because Islamic ideology, as expressed repeatedly in the Quran, is against Western human rights and freedoms. It upholds, for instance, violence against non-Islamic people (such as vulnerable indigenous British girls). He has also always been against behaviors that violate human rights - like the "grooming" of indigenous British girls by largely Islamic rape gangs, and like the inaction, for decades, of the police, social workers and government officials.

However, while there are differences between Mandela, Gandhi and Tommy, perhaps there is a huge connection. Perhaps we are seeing, once again, a major political leader in the making.

Tommy Robinson, a man with the courage to keep speaking out, and with an amazing capacity to lead.

Perhaps Tommy will be the next great leader of Great Britain.
A few key points on the arrest: he was ostensibly arrested for reporting information that was not to be made public, but everything he mentioned was already publicly available. He was standing, so he was informed, where he should not have stood - but police on site had confirmed it was all right, plus it's the same location (steps to court house) used by other reporters, none of whom were arrested. Tommy's solicitor was told by the police he was being released, so no need to come. But Tommy was not released. Instead, within 5 hours, he was sentenced to 13 months in jail.

Within a couple of days, over half a million people worldwide had signed the petition asking for his release. Protests erupted worldwide - Australia, Canada, Israel, France, Germany, as well as Great Britain, of course.

Now, the interview. Tommy talks about:
- himself long before any activism,,
- his development over the past decade,
- his response to people who have given up,
- laughing though the situation is desperate,
- the huge change that has happened for him over the past 2 years, because he now can feel the massive support he has,
- and the suggestion that we might just be seeing a Prime Minister in the making.

To sign the petition:
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson
To support Tommy:
https://tommyrobinson.online

_________________________________

Oh, and here’s one more.  World powers attempting to intimidate America, as America sits firmly, contentedly…

When Liberty turns to Anarchy; and Anarchy into Oppression…

We’ve all heard the warning concerning Democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship…

“Largess” need not be referring merely to  government handouts.  “Largess” may also be in the form of things that were formerly considered immoral.  Examples include  such things as gambling – which used to be a crime but is now government sponsored and widespread; abortions, which used to be “murder” but is now a woman’s legal right; and gay marriage, recently legalized.  At the same time, Christianity, the Bible and prayer, which were common in our public schools until the late ‘50’s, are all legally prohibited.

As Benjamin Franklin warned:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

The Liberty that Ben Franklin referred to was a good thing, but only when there was a culture that valued individual self control and personal responsibility based on mutually agreed on moral and ethical standards. 

Our predominantly Christian heritage gave our culture this gift – that is until the last few decades, and especially until the last few years.  Our laws were much fewer and our personal liberties were much greater several decades ago.  We had an inner sense of what was good and acceptable to say and do without the need for external, government imposed laws and oppressive “political correctness.”

Christians will often point out the excessive Jewish laws of the Old Testament Scriptures and rail against the Pharisees that promoted and enforced those laws.  Newsflash!  Our laws now outnumber the old Jewish Law by a factor much greater than 10,000 to one.  Shouldn’t we be railing against this, much worse, current excessive “legalism?”

There are two senses to the word “liberty.”  The sense given in our nation’s founding was a good thing.  Back then liberty meant freedom of choice of belief and practice in an environment of respect, safety and self control.  More recently that definition has morphed into a radical extreme.  The sense of liberty today is “do whatever you damn well please”; “who are you to tell me what to do”;  “judge nothing – tolerate everything”; a pervasive belief that “the moral rules of the past were based on ancient myths – they don’t really apply to anyone today.”   Thus we have the negative definition of liberty – an out of control liberty that has transformed our culture into an immoral chaos of rebellion against morality, disrespect toward our nation, increasing lawlessness in our schools and cities, and acceptable perversions that were unthinkable a few years ago.  This has become a form of moral and political anarchy.

To counter a portion of this new corrupted version of liberty/anarchy, the left (progressives) shut off any kind of dissent as being “politically incorrect.”  That means that if we say, write or do anything that the anarchists find disagreeable, we will be called bigots, haters, various “-phobes”, and generally marginalized.  Think of any topic:  Sexual morality, affirmative action as government-endorsed discrimination, pro-national borders, gun rights, abortion counseling, smaller government, lower taxes,  promoting drug abstinence, nationalism/patriotism.  Any and all of these things will bring on a torrent of hate down from the progressive left.

Moral and political anarchy has become Oppression.  Jobs and careers will and have been destroyed by our disagreement with the radical “liberty” promoted by the left.  Christian bakers and photographers have been the front line victims.  It will not stop there.  There will be a point, soon coming, where churches and Christian schools will not be able to teach Bible principles that conflict with the radical libertarian left.  That is Oppression.

True liberty requires a generally accepted moral foundation.  That foundation was Judeo-Christian teachings inherited from our founders.  To the extent that moral foundation erodes – and it has in a destructive way - additional laws are required.  True liberty diminishes when more laws are forced upon us by government.  And this leads to oppression.  And the majority wolves in this unintended “democracy” prevails against the sheep.

________________________

An on-target article on this topic was written by a gifted commentator, Joe Angione,  who writes on his The Conservative Way blog (bookmark it!).  Here it is…

Satan is loose in the land. Should you be worried?

The “prince of darkness” struts across the length and breadth of our land with brazen confidence never seen before in the history of our nation. The same is true of his rampage through Europe, the Middle and Far East and everywhere around the globe. The blame for this cannot be placed solely on George Soros…Vladimir Putin…Kim Jong Un…the Ayatollah Khamenei…or on any world dictator. We have mainly ourselves to blame for Satan’s ascendency.  

Why is this becoming so much more important now? Because if we don’t make a concerted, nationwide effort to change what we are and what we do, we won’t survive the horrific events Satan has planned for the age in which we live. It’s time to go behind today’s terrible news headlines to examine why evil is so powerful in our world.  

At home here, gun violence is massacring Americans in schools—16 school shootings already this year-- and in other public places with shocking frequency and massive devastation. In knee-jerk reactions we blame this staggering violence on gun ownership, or mental disorders, or rage prompted by terrorism, racial hatred, drugs, sexual desire or something else with the power to drive someone to murder. 

Any of these things can be subordinate contributors to this mayhem, but there is something far more sinister, vastly more evil, that is causing such terrible events. Our nation is abandoning God, denying His existence, and allowing ourselves to be possessed by the only force that remains when we drive God out of our lives. In greater and greater numbers, we are consciously or unconsciously embracing the greatest evil in the universe: The Devil, Lucifer, himself.  

Things seem to be going terribly wrong for this nation with alarming frequency. And it’s mostly our own fault. We’ve given Iran a $150 billion to pacify the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world. The money hasn’t induced that nation to abandon its development of nuclear weapons. Instead it has enabled the ayatollahs to fund massive new terrorism across the Middle East and North Africa. In essence, we have surrendered to the malevolent power that controls the government of Iran.

Losing the battle against our inclination toward evil. In the U.S., in return for our submitting ourselves to liberalism…socialism…atheism… and to other things that are an abomination to God, we’ve allowed ourselves to become passive to the greed and corruption that now plagues our government at all levels. We’ve permitted false promises, blatant lies and outright criminality to control our fate. God demands that governments be fair, honest, just and focused on the wellbeing of their citizens. And when “we the people” allow our government to embrace evil, we become complicit in that evil.
Crime without punishment.   We’ve always believed that crime deserves punishment. Yet today, there is virtually no punishment for crimes committed at our highest levels of government. The term punishment has been watered down to mean “accountability,” which means nothing more than the right to point a finger at someone and accuse him or her of a crime, but nothing more. The crimes of the politically influential go unpunished, as in the cases of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein to name just a few. A double standard has crept into our justice system, and when this happens the rights of every citizen are in dire jeopardy.   

God demands consistency in our love for Him and our obedience to His laws. If we are not unwavering in our relations with God, His punishment will surely follow.  He also requires nothing less in our observance of the laws we make to govern ourselves. All human law is derived from the will of God, and He expects society to uphold its own laws including appropriate punishment for all offenders.

---

---

The need to be worthy of God’s miracles.  Only about a week ago, in the Far East, we saw our hopes for peace and cooperation with the rogue government of North Korea nearly destroyed when its murderous leader backed off on his promise to give up his nuclear arsenal and end his threats to annihilate America. Few thought such a deal between Jim Jong Un and President Trump would ever become a reality. Most believed that it would take a miracle to make such an unlikely event happen. They were right. A miracle was needed, and will be needed, if peace talks are ever renewed between the U.S. and North Korea.  

Miracles are blessings from God awarded to those who love Him. It’s certain that the abundance of love needed to merit God’s blessing on a summit between North Korea and the U.S, was not there. And so, it appears that God withheld his blessing, at least for now.  

If God’s love is unconditional, why would He withhold a blessing that would bring so much good to the world? Much is made of the truth that God is a loving supreme being. But not enough is said about God’s righteous anger at those who reject Him and His love for them. The Bible’s Old Testament is full of instances when God’s anger was manifest against his own chosen people. He devoted Himself to them, but His favor toward them continued only as long as they loved Him and followed His laws.

Good transmogrified [transform, especially in a surprising or magical manner] into evil.  Today we’re beset by a monstrous plague of drug addiction, not only to illicit substances such as heroin and fentanyl, but also to legal prescription drugs that are now being vastly overprescribed by thoughtless physicians who care nothing about the ease with which these prescriptions are abused.  Misuse of beneficial drugs is delivering an unrelenting death sentence to thousands of people who first used them to relieve pain and suffering, but then succumbed to inevitable death by overdose. Why is this happening so often and so easily?  Mainly because we’ve chosen to separate ourselves from God’s intercession when we need it most. Prayer, so little employed today, is the link between our needs and God’s intercession.

God’s loving intercession demands a partnership with his people. It’s been said often, but needs to be said again: “When you draw closer to God, God draws closer to you.” This is one of the most powerful statements about our relationship with God. It is, essentially, a “positive-sum game,” an agreement—as in a covenant with God— where both parties’ needs and concerns are met and satisfied. In other words, we benefit every time we ask something of God in return for giving God what He asks of us.  

The whole process of gaining God’s blessings is contained in a simple, but sincere partnership agreement. But too many of us don’t think this way anymore. The growing distractions presented by new technology and new forms of entertainment, that often deny God’s existence and seduce us into violating His laws, are making this partnership almost impossible to initiate or maintain. For too many of us, the concept of a single supreme entity who created and rules over a universe composed of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars appears unbelievable. Some even call it ridiculous. Unfortunately, we fail to understand God because we’re viewing Him through the prism of our finite minds, which cannot comprehend that God’s is an infinite existence where all things are possible whether we understand them or not.  

Judeo-Christian beliefs are under attack everywhere in the world, and with increasing intensity here in the United States. We now treat atheism as the moral equivalent of belief in God. We’ve enshrined “relativism” as the concept to embrace when comparing the merits of one culture, one religion, with another. This doctrine says there is no universal, objective and absolute truth; therefore, all cultures and religions are equal. One is no better than another. How can an Islamist philosophy of hate and death be equal in any way to the eternal love and everlasting forgiveness that is at the heart of Christianity? To believe they are equally virtuous is a sin of political correctness that ensures we are deaf, dumb and blind to reality.  

Each year we continue to kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children through legal abortions. For our black community, in particular, this taking of life may soon reach the level of genocide. One of the most important traits of a benign nation—one the God would smile upon-- is that it protects the lives and the rights of its weakest citizens…and the weakest of them all are those defenseless babies in the womb waiting to be born.   

Prospects look bleak for sustaining a partnership with God.  One of the baseline examples of how a large segment of American society has turned away from God occurred in 2012 at the Democrat National Convention when it needed three promptings from the party’s leadership to obtain a vote from attendees to include a plank in their campaign platform that acknowledged the existence of God. Are Democrats the party of the “godless?” If so, we may have little hope as a nation for drawing closer to God.  

Dr. David Voas, a professor of human behavior at the University of Essex in England, is convinced that Christianity, which has been steadily losing ground, will never make a comeback in the West. His years of study reveal that a massive secularization is underway in the West. He says only about 50 percent of people in the West believe at all in God…and this percentage has been dropping decade after decade. Since the late 20th century, parents have been less inclined to teach their children about God, and to get them involved in religious practices. Dr. Voas asserts that you have to be raised with religion in order to sustain belief in it throughout your life.  

Besides this, Voas contends that there are two other principle reasons why Western societies are abandoning belief in God.: First is that prosperity brings choice. As nations become more prosperous, they lose interest in God. Affluence reduces the number of occasions when a person must plead to God to obtain life’s necessities. We can readily obtain the things we used to pray for. God doesn’t seem so necessary anymore.  

Second is that Christianity has become counter-cultural in that, rightly or wrongly, it has suffered from association with sinful activities, such as the much publicized instances of child abuse.  

The overwhelming perception in the West is that a great chasm now exists between modern society and the classical reasons why people in the past sought benefits and comfort from religion. It appears that Dr. Voas believes the God-man partnership is done and dead forever. We have irrevocably abandoned Christianity.

The rising specter of “Hell on Earth.” Hidden within Dr. Voas’ statements about the demise of Christianity is a false, or at least an unrealistic, premise that prosperity will continue, unimpeded and unabated, therefore guaranteeing that man no longer needs to call on God for anything. But it’s clear that prosperity ebbs and flows; it is not certain to last.  

There is every reason to believe that evil has reached new terrifying heights in our world. Clear evidence of this is in the news reports we see each day. About 80 percent involve negative, frightening events. Might this portend that “Hell on Earth” could be just around the corner?  

Here in America, confidence in our government is beginning to rise. But, only because President Trump is delivering on at least some of his promises to bring the nation back to greatness. But we have absolutely no certainty that he will be allowed to continue working for our benefit. The deep state is marshalling all its power to depose both him and Vice President Pence. This cabal’s ultimate goal is to manipulate the U.S. Constitution to place the presidency in the hands of one of the political world’s most obvious abusers of our laws and God’s wishes: Hillary Clinton.   

Would God allow this to happen? Our freedom of choice that evolves from God’s love for us allows us to freely choose either good or evil. If we choose an evil such as robbing Donald Trump of his election victory and undoing his accomplishments, God won’t stand in our way. The right choice is always available to us, but it’s essentially up to us to make this choice. Only by seeking God’s assistance through prayer will He guide us to the right decision. Also, we must remember God never ordained that perfection was to rule our world. Only heaven is the true realm of perfection.  

But if perfection is not going to happen in our world, there are degrees of rightness and wellbeing that God has made possible for us to achieve. But this depends on the quality of our partnership with Him.

Little time to make things right.  Life’s experiences tell us: “If you want to keep on getting what you’re getting, keep on doing what you’re doing.” And so, true partnership with God demands that we change what we’re doing to what God wants us to do. Each of us, through this partnership, determines everything that is good or bad in our world.  

If you’re worried that the “end of days” might be upon us, and you recognize that what you’ve done or haven’t done has contributed to Satan’s ascendency, I urge you to pray hard…pray regularly…return to your house of worship and beg God for forgiveness and deliverance. Do it now. There may be precious little time left.