The Race Is On!

     I'm sorry, but I happen to be one of those who no longer puts much faith in our national elections.  There was a time when I thought my vote counted for something, and the American people truly had a voice in who governs our nation.  Perhaps I've just grown cynical as I watch those in power get richer at our expense, and the election process become more corrupt and fraudulent.  I no longer trust the election results, and I believe those that are chosen to run for office are selected; not by the people of this country, but by power brokers who answer to unknown elitists who govern the world.
     I know that sounds like some dystopian theory, like 1984 or Brave New World, but I've realized that any chance of Utopia has long been abandoned.  Just consider the scandals that we've faced in the last few years ... Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the targeting by IRS, Hillary's missing emails, sanctuary cities ... have any of these investigations by Congressional Committees yielded any results?  Are they intended to?  Or are they just for show; to mollify the populace's outrage over the immoral and unethical practices of those who are supposed to be representing us?

     And that brings us to the primetime Republican debates this evening.  Think they will yield any true results?  Or are they all for show, too?  Are the 16, or so, candidates just a ruse to make us think we really have a choice, or that we stand a chance of picking the best candidate that embodies our values?  Sure, they all are trying to claim the mantle of "true Conservative", because they think that will garner the most support from the dissatisfied American voter.
     So, will we really hear their true positions on policies and where they want to take the country -- or will they all listen to their political strategists and "game" the air time to try to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters; or better yet, try to deliver the cleverest soundbite that will be repeated ad nauseam on the morning talk shows?  Other than Donald Trump -- who might just be the biggest "gamer" of them all -- will anyone step outside the tightly scripted box and give us just a touch of reality?
     Will the questions even be fair and balanced?  Or will one or two candidates get "soft balls", while others are targeted to fail?  Don't get me wrong ... I'm going to be watching!  But not because I expect that there is one candidate who will rise to the top and be our knight in shining armor.  I'm actually going to  watch because I hope to be able to foretell, by the answers, what the true objective is for the next President of these United States.
     You see, I'm nearly convinced that this person has already been selected by the powers-that-be, and it doesn't really matter whether they are Republican or Democrat.  The path that this country will take has already been decided and put in motion.  The 45th President will just help move us in that direction.  And will you really be surprised if we end up with another Bush or Clinton? Really???
     Frankly, I am amazed at my own skepticism and distrust.  Just a few years ago, I still believed in the honor and propriety of our election process.  I thought there was a significant difference in the philosophies of the two major parties, and that the will of the people would win out.  But it seems as if the veil has been removed from the process, and I see that we've been deceived for a very long time.  I think we would be surprised if we dug too far under the surface of the men who have led this nation during the last century.  I will leave the conspiracy theories to others who have done extensive research, but I have to admit that I no longer wear my rose-colored glasses.
     It will be interesting to see how these debates play out tonight.  Will there be a discernible and underlying message to the American people about what we can expect after the next election?  Will we be able to tell who has already been crowned "The Chosen One"?  Will there be any man who is God's true representative on that stage?
     I think that is my greatest fear ... that I will finish the night feeling as if God has relinquished His authority in establishing those who rule us, and is leaving us to our own particular schemes, agendas, and tactics.  And I think we all know how that will turn out ... so, if that is the case, I invite you to join me, my family, and my friends in strengthening our faith to overcome whatever the election might bring.  We are ultimately responsible in how we live out each day -- whether in prosperity or hardship; success or failure; or in the glow of His Light or the depths of Darkness.  Remember, we are not of this world; this is our temporary citizenship.  The more Americans who can realize that and put their faith in the next world; the fewer Americans there will be who will cast all their hope on the polling results of an inconsequential debate.  Put your trust in no man!

Psalm 40:4   "Blessed is the man who makes the Lord his trust, who does not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after a lie!"

Do Not Put Your Trust In Man!

     Unfortunately, I am not one who thinks that we, the American people, really have a say in who will be the next President of the United States.  I can't help but feel that all the media circus -- which includes 16 or more Republican candidates; a mostly silent former Secretary of State with lots of questions to answer; and a provocative and outspoken real estate and entertainment mogul -- is all a front to make us feel that we are really going to have a choice this time.
    But a circus is what it is; which is defined as "a public scene of frenzied and noisily intrusive activity".  And I fear it is all for show.  My spirit tells me that all we are seeing is a public display of orchestrated campaign shenanigans so we will feel better about the illusion that our vote counts.  But what is really going on is a carefully followed script; the victor has already been decided in the back rooms and closed meetings of the Elite.

     At the same time, I know that God is ultimately in control, no matter what the election operatives think, and our next President will be His judgment upon our nation, whether good or bad.  If, as a nation, we would fall to our knees and repent of our grievous sins, perhaps He will bless us with a leader who will restore us to our once-upon-a-time moral greatness and prosperity.  But if we don't, then we can be assured we will get the leader we deserve.  I believe in miracles, but, frankly, it looks as if our chances of that are slipping away.
     I will admit that the fleshly side of me longs for a hero to come out of the wings, and I have even applauded the brashness and unconventional approach of Donald Trump.  Yes, he was a breath of fresh air; voicing the thoughts and hopes of the common man.  But as the days have advanced, I am forced to regard his campaign with an even sharper eye than I first viewed him... especially now that he is openly contemplating running as a Third Party candidate.
     I'm sorry, but I guess I'm a born cynic.  Is he just a shill for Hillary Clinton?  After all, he is on record contributing to the Clinton Foundation, and even endorsed her Senate campaign.  And how sincere is he really, when it comes to representing conservative values?  He has changed parties several times since the 1980s, and three times since 2001, alone.  He certainly appears to be saying all the right things that would appeal to those in the heartland, but I have yet to hear of a statement on his faith that I could, well, ... but any faith in.  His rhetoric is full of emotion, but lacks any real hard facts  or foundation on where he stands on the issues that matter.  There is enough suspicion about his positions on gun control and higher taxes to make me nervous, and his history on using eminent domain to further his business ambitions is less than complimentary.
     So, is all this just primetime theater and a shell game for those who might still hold out hope that our election system is fair and honest?  A Third Party candidate will certainly split the vote and perhaps the Democrats are playing it safe ... just sit back and let the Conservatives waste their votes.  Or better yet, it is just all part of the game; they are all in on it, and we are just gullible pawns.
     In my heart and soul, I know that there is a good possibility that nothing is going to change.  I know that I can put no trust in man; that I will not find my strength or shelter in the flesh.  I know that "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes" (Psalms 118:9).  Yet, we must never forget that God can use anyone to glorify Himself.  We must pray that out of all these candidates, He can find one that will represent Him; one man that will put God before his own selfish ambitions.  Have we seen that man or woman yet?  I am going to try to put aside my fleshly hopes and dreams and rely on God's choice.  Whether the next President is redemption or judgment, only the Lord knows.  I just pray that He will be merciful...

John 2:24-25    "But Jesus [for His part] did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all [men]; And He did not need anyone to bear witness concerning man [needed no evidence from anyone about men], for He Himself knew what was in human nature. [He could read men’s hearts.]"
   

Thank You, Donald!

   

     I usually don't like to get into the political debate spectrum of writing, but I have to admit it's been kind of fun watching the media circus surrounding Donald Trump.  First of all, you never know what kind of off-the-cuff (and cringe-worthy) remark he is going to make.  When all is said and done, I don't think he ever makes a statement in which he doesn't offend someone.  But, you know, that's kind of refreshing; and I think it is the key to his success in the polls.
     No matter how much the talking heads try to spin it, they can't deny that he's proving popular with the American people.  And why is that, do you think?  Everybody from Rush Limbaugh to MSNBC is trying to dissect and terminate his appeal; and maybe it's as simple as he's not a politician and people are enjoying his frankness and candor, whether they agree with him or not.
     I can only speak for myself, but I think the American people see Donald Trump as a possible champion of the shrinking Middle Class.  True, the other candidates all proclaim the same thing.  But only Donald Trump has the courage to cut through the politically correct nonsense and say what we in the heartland are really thinking ... illegal immigration IS hurting America; Common Core IS bad for our kids; climate change IS a hoax; and our foreign policy DOES seem designed to destroy America.
     When he says that he wants to save his country, I actually believe him.  Now, can we expect that his businesses might profit from his economic policies to put Americans back to work?  He'd be a fool not to benefit, wouldn't he?  And would you really care if he added another million or two to his portfolio, if domestic manufacturing once again dominated the global economy, and the jobless rate in this country took a nosedive?
     Just one day after he was ridiculed for saying "illegal immigrants are destroying the fabric of the country while the middle class is getting decimated", we had the horrific case of the Kathryn Steinle murder in San Francisco, committed by a 7-time illegal felon.  Now the whole country is talking about a situation that the administration, media, and politicians have tried to sweep under the rug.  Maybe Donald Trump's language is a little course; and certainly not every illegal immigrant is a felon, but he has managed to shine the spotlight on the issue, while others have tried to keep us in the dark.
     And I am finally glad to hear someone make a real case against Common Core; someone who isn't afraid to ask, "Do you want Washington, D.C. educating your kids?"  Like many Americans, Trump believes in state and local control ... whether it be taxes, infrastructure, or school curriculum.
     I think Americans applaud his common sense approach to issues.  He may not seem particularly "statesman-like", but maybe we're just a little tired of having everything forced down our throats by the political machine.  Take his stance on the vaccine controversy, for instance.  Rather than having to pick a side, either pro or con, Trump chooses to express his opinion that perhaps we don't need to advocate massive combined inoculations to small children, which he believes could be the cause for a big increase in autism.  He suggests spreading the shots over a long period, and watch the positive result.  He says, "What's the harm in that?  And I believe we will see autism rates go way down."  Doesn't that sound better than mandatory vaccinations?  Don't you think that you might get better cooperation from those on both sides of this issue?  Isn't it time for a little common sense on this topic?
     There will be those who worry about his abilities and experience to militarily defend the homeland.  But, once again, I think his success as a businessman has shown us that he's smart enough to appoint the military experts he needs in order to get the job done.  Just watch one episode of The Celebrity Apprentice, and you know that he surrounds himself with the best of the best.
     So, is Donald Trump a serious candidate?  I'm not too sure it really matters.  Because, as we all know, the candidate out front is just the puppet for the machine that really runs everything.  If he truly shows any staying power, watch for some kind of scandal to take him down.  The machine will not allow a free-thinker to win; especially one who actually believes in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, traditional marriage, and the exceptionalism of America.  So, enjoy The Donald while you can.  Trump is showing us that we don't have to settle for the pre-chosen candidate; and, if nothing else, he is a refreshing change from the stereotypical politician.  And pray that God will use him to wake up more Americans to what the country could be and should be.  After all, God has used stranger people to ensure His purpose ...

Proverbs 8:1-5    Does not wisdom call?  Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand; beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud: “To you, O men, I call, and my cry is to the children of man. O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense.


   
   

What's Missing?

     If you are like me, you eye each new announced candidacy for the President of the United States with suspicion.  The latest self-proclaimed "Savior" of our nation is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  There was a time when all that he promised in his announcement speech would have resonated with me ...  He's for a government restrained by the Constitution.  He wants to eliminate the national debt that "threatens not just our economy, but our security".  He employed all the buzz words that used to ignite my patriotic soul ... privacy, opportunity, liberty, justice, and freedom.
     He was bold in his willingness to actually name our foreign enemy as radical Islam; and he is a proponent of a national defense that is "unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered by overseas nation-building" (there's a nod to his Libertarian base).  I am in total agreement with him when he says it angers him "to see mobs burning our flag and chanting 'Death to America' in countries that receive millions of dollars in foreign aid."
     As a patriotic American, I find no fault in any of these statements.  I believe his stance on all these positions to be in alignment with my own.   But the positions that are important to me as a Christian stand above my nationalistic leanings.  I don't know -- maybe it's because I am so ready to be in God's system rather than this world's system ... [but since I am stuck here in the world], there are "issues" that are more important than the success of our economy or national defense.  And, on these positions, I heard nothing from the good Senator.

     At the top of that list, I would like to know what his opinions would be, as President, on such issues as the Sanctity of Life; my freedom to worship my God; the preservation of the Biblical model of marriage and family; how he views the Nation of Israel; and it would have been nice to hear any kind of statement about his personal faith.  The answers to those questions will go a long way in determining if he is the man I wish to govern my nation.  Yet, he was silent on all these issues.  And perhaps, worse still, he is already dodging questions in the media on how he would regard exceptions to abortions.  All the "rah-rah America" speeches in the world amount to nothing if I do not know the man's heart on issues that matter to God.
     In case you can't tell, I am longing more for my heavenly home, and becoming more cynical about this temporary residence on earth.  I see the hand-writing on the wall ... this Age of humanity is declining at a furious pace.  On one hand, we are racing to annihilate each other.  On the other hand, we are recklessly and rapidly seeking to become immortal by integrating what God made in His image with machines.  How can a political election really have any saving grace for us?
     You see, for all the patriotic fervor that we will experience during the next two years, we Americans would be better off to concentrate on where we will spend our eternal citizenship.  Remember, if we call ourselves Christians, we are not of this world.  The problem is that our patriotism can become a pseudo-religion, and takes our eyes off God and our real role on this earth ... to bring others out of this world system and into relationship with Christ.
     Yes, we must live in this world -- but not be "of the world".  And, yes, there will be a man elected to lead our nation in the fall of 2016.  Whether he will be a man that is pleasing to God, remains to be seen.  But I am discovering that my zeal as an American is being replaced with a passion to live my life as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.  Don't get me wrong -- I am still patriotic; I love my country. But in these days, I am more inclined to be a loyal-to-the-death defender of God's traditions and values.  And that is what I would love to see mirrored in my nation's leaders.

John 17:15-17     "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.  They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."
   
   

It's All Part Of The Game

   

     For the past few seasons, there has been a popular TV show called "Game of Thrones".  It has captured the imaginations of millions of Americans and is about fictional dynasties and their nasty infighting and subterfuge as they compete for power and dominance over each other.  Even though the story lines are make-believe and mythical, it's not much different than what we see going on in our own political system.
     Whenever the established "dynasties" of American politics are faced with a new contender, the battle is on!  But if you are really observant, you can tell that it is not just the competing parties that engage in a full-on assault on the newcomer, but even power bases within their own political family.  You are seeing it in the attacks upon Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator who is among the first to throw his hat into the political ring for the 2016 Presidency.
     You would expect the Democrats to launch a strike, but the establishment Republicans are also up-in-arms against him.  Now, I am in no way endorsing the candidacy of Mr. Cruz.  I'm afraid that I've grown too skeptical of politicians, and have been fooled too many times.  Oh, Ted says all the right things; the things I want to hear -- he is unapologetically conservative; has a profound faith in God and the American story of freedom for all; he wants to change Washington; and he is a determined supporter of Israel.  But we've heard all that before, right?
     And then there is that photo of him and Henry Kissinger ... I could have done without that.  I'm sure you've read all the hoopla over it among ultra-conservative bloggers:  "Ted Cruz kisses the ring of the Illuminati"; "Ted Cruz announces his anointing by the New World Order", etc.  Now, I have to admit that my spider senses went crazy when that image appeared in the news media.
     What exactly was the reason for that meeting?  Why would Ted Cruz seek out Kissinger, and is there any hidden meaning in his announcement that it was "an honor" to sit down with the former power figure?  Does it have anything to do with former Secretary of State Kissinger's ideas of how the U.S. could play " a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order", as expressed in his August 2014 Wall Street Journal essay?  Is Cruz seeking acceptance by the NWO, or asking for advice?
     OR, could it be that it was Kissinger that sought out Cruz in the hopes of bringing him into the NWO fold?  Could Cruz have rejected the offer and that is why the Establishment Republicans (NWO hacks, themselves?) are so vehemently against him?
     If that is the case, then why did Candidate Cruz ignore all the uproar over the implications of that meeting?  If you are the anti-New World Order candidate, wouldn't you want to make that perfectly clear to all those who have doubts?  Otherwise, everything you have to say beyond this point is tainted and suspect.

     But just as in the TV series, everything in this real-life Game of Thrones is pretty much up for grabs.  But we, the American people, must ask ourselves this pertinent question: Do we really think that this round of Clintons, or Bushes, or even the Tea Party rebels running for President will make a difference in the future of America?  Doesn't it feel like it's just all part of the game?  That it's already been decided who will wear the crown, and all this maneuvering and plotting and juxtaposition for alliances is just for show?
     It's obvious that the American people (at least those who are awake) are tired of the masquerade.  The old political promises and tactics don't work anymore.  What if the puppet masters recognize that, and so they are trying a new action plan?  Don't you think it is possible that Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio are just wolves in sheep's clothing?  Can you conceive that the strategy may look different this time, but the result will be the same -- the NWO has been set in motion and is inevitable?
     I know there are many who still believe that our vote counts; that we can change the direction and course this country is on.  But my Biblical worldview is telling me that the four riders of the Apocalypse have begun their ride and the seals are opening.  War, Famine, Pestilence and Death abound in the earth; they are soon to be followed by the appearance of the Anti-Christ.  God can still decide to intervene in the affairs of our nation, and through His sovereignty anoint a God-fearing leader as our next President.  We can, and should, pray for that.
     And while we're praying, let's ask that we all have discerning minds to clearly see the schemes of our Enemy ... for just like the popular TV series, the Devil's story is one of duplicity and treachery, conquest and triumph.  We are the pawns in his real-life battle for the Heavenly Throne.  Unlike the election of our next President, we already know who the Victor of the heavenly battle will be; but we must still guard against the darkness of the Usurper.  Stay vigilant!

Exodus 3:19-20   "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.  But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,"
   

What Constitutes A Traitor These Days?

     According to Webster's Dictionary, a traitor is: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy.  Pretty serious accusation, wouldn't you say?  And treason, what is it's definition?  Again, according to Webster's, it is "the crime of trying to overthrow your country's government or of helping your country's enemies during war".

     I bring up these definitions because that is what The New York Daily News has called Senator Tom Cotton in, what I consider, is a libelous front page editorial.  It appears that Mr. Cotton, who spearheaded a group of 46 fellow Republican Senators, took his job seriously as a representative of the people of this great nation, and wrote a letter to the leaders of Iran, informing them of just how our Constitutional system works when it comes to ratifying any treaties -- in case they were thinking of pulling any end-around play in gaining U.S. approval for their nuclear proliferation.
      What is it about Tom Cotton's letter that has the political world in such an uproar?  First of all, I don't think it is actually his letter that is the problem.  After all, in essence, all he did was paraphrase Article II of the Constitution, by informing the Iranian regime that any deal cut with the President without Congressional approval would be subject to alterations by Congress and revocable by future presidents.  And for that, his actions are labeled "bordering on treason" by a former Democratic politician.  But does that simple letter meet the qualifications for the definition of treason?  It hardly appears to be an attempt to "overthrow the government", or of "helping our country's enemies during war".
     Like I said, the letter and its contents aren't the problem.  I believe the real problem is Tom Cotton, himself.  You see, Mr. Cotton is representative of a new breed of elected Congressmen who actually have the credentials, and the experience, to back their positions.  Mr. Cotton is the youngest member of the Senate and a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School.  But it is his military demeanor and record that I think offends the political establishment the most.  He served as an infantry officer in the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq in 2006, arguably one of the bloodiest periods of the war. 
      Like many of his military counterparts, he has returned home from serving his country on the battlefield, and has answered the call to serve in the Halls of Congress.  From my perspective, who better to lend their voice to the ongoing debate over our interventionist policies in foreign wars?  For me, whether he is a hawk or dove isn't the issue -- I would rather have someone involved in developing our country's policies , who has "walked the walk", than all the career politicians who are there because they can "talk the talk" better than the next guy, or have a bigger campaign chest.
      No, I believe the Establishment in D.C. is none too fond of the likes of Tom Cotton, who after facing our enemies on the front lines of war-torn Iraq, is none too intimidated by our domestic enemies, who would defeat us through diplomatic channels.  In fact, I don't think the Establishment knows how to deal with Tom Cotton, who is known for his discipline, and his fearless defense of his principles.  While at Harvard, he wrote a 92-page thesis on the Federalist Papers, showing his keen interest in how government works.  After the attacks on 9-11, he joined the Army and spent almost five years on active duty, including as a platoon leader on combat patrols in Baghdad.  He is also known for his unwillingness to compromise, even if it means going against party lines.  (You've got to admire him for that!)  And because of his bold and defiant schooling of the Iranian leadership, there is now an attempt to invoke the obscure Logan Act to censure him.
     What is the Logan Act?  Enacted in 1799, the Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was intended to prohibit such negotiations after Pennsylvania state legislator Dr. George Logan traveled to Paris to enter into discussions with the French during a period of severe tensions between our two governments.  His actions were labeled "semi-negotiations", and although his efforts appeared to result in a positive avoidance of all-out war, it angered his political rivals who sought "to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States."  Sounds like the Logan Act was the result of political jealousy and was meant as a slap on the wrist of a political upstart.  Nothing has changed in American politics.
     The use of the Logan Act for political punishment is nothing new.  In 1803 the Act was procured against a private citizen who wrote a letter to a newspaper, advocating a separate U.S. nation in the west that would ally with France.  The subsequent purchase of the Louisiana Territory caused the separatism issue to disappear.  In 1941, it was suggested that the Logan Act could apply to former President Herbert Hoover because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.   In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there.  In 1984, Jesse Jackson traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua to negotiate for the exchange of political prisoners.  Again, the Logan Act was dusted off and implied.
      And I'm sure you all remember the little political trip that Nancy Pelosi took in 2007.  Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would prohibit then-Speaker of the House Pelosi from drawing on Federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act. The amendment was not adopted, of course.
     So, does all this sound like political grand-standing?  Yes!  Political sour grapes?  Absolutely!  Senator Cotton and 46 other Senators did not violate the Logan Act.  There were no "negotiations"; just stated facts about the Constitution.  And to insinuate that he is a traitor to his country, or could be dangerously close to committing treason is absurd.  I, for one, am impressed with his forthrightness, his loyalty to the Constitution and his country, and his unflinching attitude in defending the American people from what he thinks is dangerous policy.
     I think we can actually go back to the original intention of the Logan Act ... "to curb the temerity and impudence" of men like Tom Cotton.  How dare he stand up for the American people and the United States!  May the courage he displayed in the midst of war carry him through the battles he will face in the belly of the beast that is Washington, D.C.  And may he remain steadfast in his determination to defeat those who would defeat us; and avoid the failure of being compromised as so many before him have done.  We, the American people, watch and wait for someone to defend us.

Proverbs 13:6   "Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked."

 
     

We're Being Played; And It's All There In The Playbook

     If you aren't familiar with Saul Alinksy's Rules For Radicals ... you should be.  Actually, there is more to the title.  A fuller understanding of the Rules is that it is A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.  A true social radical, who wanted complete and thorough social reform, Alinsky was a community organizer from 1939-1971, and his followers are among the most prominent names in politics today.  (Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton viewed him as a mentor before his death in 1971).

     According to his own goals, Alinksy sought to create a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order to empower them to gain social, political, and economic equality by challenging the current agencies that promoted their inequality.  The ultimate goal was to successfully unite people into an active organization with the power to effect change on a variety of issues.
     But, now we see that some of these rules have been successfully adapted to divide the nation.  At any one time during the last quarter of a century, some of the 12 rules in Mr. Alinsky's little volume of progressive edicts could be seen in operation.  But I just want to point out that a full onslaught of more than half of them are in plain sight today.

    RULE #5:  "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
•  There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)  
     We have seen this tactic employed in the same-sex marriage debate, for instance.  Paint Christians as narrow-minded and exclusive; as denying love between two human beings.  By ridiculing the Church, urge change and acceptance within the rank and file members.  And to further taunt them, threaten their livelihoods by bringing lawsuits against businesses who refuse to compromise.
     RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
•  They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. 
     Who doesn't enjoy the camera on them as they disrupt traffic, businesses, and law-abiding citizens?  Being part of a "cause" gives meaning to meaningless lives, and contributes to that 15 minutes of fame.
     RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
•  Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) 
     This has certainly been the strategy with the Affordable Health Care Act, Illegal Immigration, Gun  Control, and a number of other issues.  If you think these radical thinkers are responding with new directions and policy changes in "real time", think again; they have anticipated multiple reactions to their tactics, and their game plan was formulated long ago.
     RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”  
•  Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality ... The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
     Again, we have seen that with the Obamacare and Illegal Immigration.  Threaten millions with the possibility of fines, no health insurance at all; or with families being split up and deported to Mexico, and you can convince the public that the lesser of two evils is acceptable.
      RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” 
•  Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. 
     Ferguson, Missouri and New York City are prime examples of how well this rule can work.  If you can make Michael Brown and Eric Garner the underdogs, and push the narrative that the Black race has played victim long enough, you can use the ensuing violence, hatred and division to further your own agenda -- keep the races alienated and isolated, and you can play them off each other to secure and increase your power base.
     RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” 
•  Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. 
     This rule is actually very similar to the Hegelian Dialectic; basically, you create the problem that you have a pre-formulated solution to, and you step in to save the day and solve the (artificial) problem.  Can you see that encouraging race violence might be a way to introduce the militarization of police (never mind that they vigorously deny it, or condemn the police for their actions).  Just a thought...
     Finally, RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
•  Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
     This strategy has been used against The Tea Party; political figures like Sarah Palin; and military leaders like General Petraeus.  Nothing is too underhanded, too harsh, or too unacceptable.  Whatever it takes to win and take the opposition out of the arena.
     So, as you look back over these rules for social radicals, you will see something they all have in common -- and it is more than their similarities to Socialism and Communism.  They all lack a moral defense.  When mankind seeks to change how a society functions through deceptive and immoral means, it results in corruption, godlessness and chaos... just the conditions the Devil loves (and, by the way, to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals -- see above quote).
     The truly sad thing is that far too many of Mr. Alinsky's disciples are teaching on our college campuses, and too many of his graduate students are in positions of power.  We must regain a sense of who we are meant to be, and follow our own set of 10 rules; those carved on tablets of stone nearly 3500 years ago.  They are the solutions to all of society's woes.

Isaiah 64:6    "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."
   
   
   

2014 Midterm Election: Can Our Nation Be Revived?

     While millions of Americans are celebrating the outcome of the 2014 midterm elections, I am looking beyond red states and blue states; beyond Senate majorities; and looking for more relevance than exit polls.  Yes, by all outward appearances, it would seem that the American people have shown their desire for a different future.... there seems to be a mandate to "turn the country around."

     But shouldn't our enthusiasm be to turn the country "towards" something, rather than around?  I don't know; maybe to you, that means the same thing.  But then the obvious question becomes, "To whom, or what, are we turning?" The pundits will tell you that the country has spoken loud and clear that they want to return to "conservative principles".  That usually means pro-life; pro-Constitution; traditional values in areas like marriage, family and faith; and belief in a strong work ethic versus entitlement policies.
     The Republican Party has been declared the winner of Tuesday night's elections.  The talking heads are telling us that it is obvious the American people believed in the "Republican message", and have decided that they trust it more than "the message" of either the Democratic or Independent parties.  But, as you know, I look at everything through my Biblical worldview, and I am not yet ready to declare this election a victory for the American people or my nation.
     Rather than the "Republican message", I'd rather see my fellow countrymen believe in the message that our restoration will come as a result of turning towards God and believing in His promises, rather than to the worldly promises of men. You see, I don't trust any message delivered by man, let alone a "Party" of men.  Instead I compare our experience to what the Bible says about a revived nation, namely:  "Where there is no vision [no redemptive revelation of God], the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).  Or, how about this:  "A land which transgresses [is punished by] having many rulers; but with a man of understanding and knowledge, stability is prolonged." (Proverbs 28:2).

     So, do the men and women who were elected on "a wave" of Republican candidates (I hate the new media slogan created for this election cycle) have understanding and knowledge?  And is their wisdom of the kind that will truly bring about a revival [and stability] to this country; a revival, which in its true meaning, is "to live again, to receive again a life which has almost expired; to rekindle into a flame the vital spark which was nearly extinguished?"  This definition of revival is a quote from famed theologian Charles Spurgeon, and points to the fact that something must still have a degree of life in it, to be revived.  I confess, that I'm not convinced that a change in the balance of power in Washington, D.C. can breathe new life into the nearly extinguished American experiment....  UNLESS it is accompanied  by a turning around, or a turning towards, or a returning to God.
     By necessity, a Revival of good fortune for this nation means that our newly elected leaders, and the people of this country, MUST refuse to compromise with the world's values and, instead, promote systems that honor God -- in our homes, our families, our businesses, our government, and the public square.  If that is not our focus, then this election means nothing more than putting a different color ribbon on the same dirty pig.  Consider this:  exit polls showed that the Economy and Healthcare Costs were the number one and two (respectively) issues that most concerned Americans who voted.  This tells me that most people are concerned about money; about their level of comfort and security in this world.  But if they are looking towards an elected politician to provide refuge from the worries and insufficiencies of this world, then they are only looking for outward and external answers.
     As Charles Spurgeon wrote, "When revival comes to a people ... the sickly soul which before was insensible, weak, and sorrowful, [now] grows earnest [genuine; committed], vigorous, and happy in the Lord."  That's what I hope this election signifies!  It is my sincere hope that both the new Congress and the nation's citizens will move forwards; turn and move towards a spiritual renewal that will not only render us a prosperous nation once again, but renew our spiritual lives and power.  Now those are some election results I could truly rejoice in!

Proverbs 2:21-22      "For the upright will live in the land the pure-hearted will remain there; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, the unfaithful rooted out of it."
    
   

Rural vs Urban: The Divide Grows; and Who Is Responsible?

     I was interested in reading an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled "City vs. Country: How Where We Live Deepens the Nation's Political Divide" .... that is, until I read the subtle bias in how the reporters portrayed each demographic.
     It was a compelling concept; take a poll and contrast a small rural town in Missouri with the big metropolis of Kansas City, just a couple hours away.  You would expect to find that the poll showed differences in cultural values, shopping preferences, and job opportunities, for example.  But it was the way in which the poll results seemed to imply that city dwellers were more enlightened and more sophisticated than their country cousins that rubbed me the wrong way.  And, of course, according to the article, that narrative would also seem to represent the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

     Let me illustrate just how each group was depicted.  The citizens of El Dorado Springs, Missouri were described as older, nearly 100% white and overwhelmingly Republican; typical of small-town America.  The owner of the nicest restaurant in town doesn't serve alcohol, because he doesn't want to offend his pastor.  Public schools don't schedule events on Wednesday evenings, so as not to conflict with the town churches' Bible Study times.
     Those who lived in Kansas City were more ethnically diverse and religion was not as important.  That seems to be a fair statement.  But, the stereotype for the rural community seemed a little exaggerated.  (I wonder how long it took them to find a town that exhibited the characteristics they hate so much?)
     I also found it a little transparent that one pollster decided to compare how Democratic presidential candidates fared in counties with the upscale Whole Foods organic grocery chain, versus those counties that included a Cracker Barrel, which he made sure to point out, served "chicken and dumplings."  Subtle, but conspicuous, don't you think?  But I know for a fact that big cities that have Whole Foods stores also have Cracker Barrel restaurants.  And rural citizens eat a whole lot more organically than many of their city counterparts;  they eat straight from their gardens and aren't tempted by all the high calories and processed content of fast food chains.
     Of course, social issues like abortion, school prayer, and same-sex marriage were seen in a negative light, and characteristic of rural voters who supported Republican candidates.  The small-town church pastor in El Dorado Springs who advocates the Biblical view on these issues is portrayed as narrow-minded even though he states that "We're a church that does embrace people and we love people regardless of their circumstances."  On the other hand, at the Country Club Congregational United Church of Christ (that's its real name!) in Kansas City, there is a rainbow flag that welcomes and affirms all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, and sees these issues as "social justice" matters that need to be addressed politically.
     This same church resides in a neighborhood with boutique shops; an Italian market that sells imported coffee beans and pasta; and a toy store that sells a kit to conduct solar experiments.  The article reveals that El Dorado Springs has a BBQ restaurant called the Rusty Jug that is decorated like an old-West saloon and serves deep-fried ribs and deep-fried potato salad.  Starting to get the picture?  Anything in small-town America is quaint, provincial or unfashionable; everything in Urban areas is advanced, contemporary and clearly more preferable.
     And according to the WSJ, the various polls indicate that small town America is forced to shop at Dollar General, while their counterparts in Big City USA have options such as Apple stores, J. Crew and Williams-Sonoma.  There are more job opportunities, more conveniences, and more entertainment options in urban areas.  And I would agree with that.  There is less tolerance, less diversity, and less progress in rural communities.  Translation:  These people vote conservatively and the culture suffers.
     Maybe I'm reading too much into the research outlined in this article.  But I couldn't help but feel that all those poll results were meant to convey that socially progressive urbanites that voted Democratic lived better lives than Republican voters who suffered from their backwards, prejudiced, and deprived lifestyles.  I resent the simplification, generalization, and stereotyping.
     Having lived in both demographics, I will concur that we, who live in rural areas, lack certain amenities.  Yes, I have to drive 45 minutes to go to the movies or to find a Starbucks, and there's not a good bookstore within 100 miles.  But I get better and more personal medical care; I love that Church and Faith take priority over the latest social trend; and I love that I am surrounded by "real" people instead of the shallow, superficial folks that I endured for years.  And you know what?  Party politics doesn't really play a role.   Here, in the sticks, we may not be "cool", and we most definitely love "our God and our guns" -- but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else... even if the Wall Street Journal and all its polls, surveys and market research indicates otherwise.  Besides, I thought diversity and tolerance was the name of the game, right?
     Didn't God make us all different; yet we are all made in His image?  Aren't we supposed to accept our differences, instead of encouraged to regard each other with contempt?  What's the real purpose of publishing poll results like these (which can easily be manipulated and distorted)?  Who gains by continuing the divide in morals, values, lifestyles and opinions?  It isn't the individuals in the city or the people in the rural communities!  As usual, it all comes down to power, arrogance, and selfishness. If only we, as individuals, could love each other as we were designed to, then the ones pulling the puppet strings could not win.  Please, Father God, help us to see each other as you see us.  It's so simple!

Hebrews 12:14    "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

Does Texas Represent The Country?

     The Primary Elections are upon us, and none has been pontificated upon more than the Texas Primaries. It didn't matter which side of the political spectrum you found yourself ... all eyes were on Texas.  There has been lots of talk about money pouring into the state in the hopes of turning Texas from a red state to a blue one.  I suppose that those who embrace the Progressive, Socialist ideology would like nothing better than to see this stronghold of Conservatism brought under their control.

     While most of the talking heads have concentrated their focus on the Tea Party influence (which election results proved to be substantial), I was less interested in the candidates.  Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled to see that the candidates endorsed by Ted Cruz were pretty much winners across the board.  But I have been disappointed in candidates before, and I'm not likely to put my trust in elected officials so easily.  No, it was the Ballot Initiatives that caught my eye, and I can truly say that I am proud of what is important to those who wish to represent us.
     Usually, when you get to the bottom of the ballot, there are any number of Propositions that are vague and ill-written; you're not exactly sure how this would affect you and therefore, you have no idea  whether you are "for" it or "against" it.  Not so, this election.  The Republican Party ballot offered six resolutions to be considered for the party's platform and possible legislation.  These were considered important enough to bring to the citizenry and to be placed on the general primary election ballot.  I got more excited with each one that came into view.  Here they are in all their glory:
1.  Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.  IN FAVOR:  97.2%.
2.  Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry.  IN FAVOR:  86.92%
3.  Texas should abolish the state franchise tax, also known as the margins tax, to encourage business growth.  IN FAVOR:  88.47%
4.  Texas recipients of taxpayer-funded public assistance should be subject to random drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.  IN FAVOR:  94.9%
5.  All elected officials and their staff should be subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances as their constituents.  IN FAVOR:  99.36%
6.  The Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” should be repealed.  IN FAVOR:  93%.
     It's fairly obvious that we, here in the Lone Star state, believe in the First and Second Amendments; growing the Economy; holding Welfare recipients accountable; holding the Legislators accountable by making them abide by the same rules as the People; and we don't want anything to do with Obamacare.
     Hmmm .... those ideals don't come anywhere close to coinciding with the Progressive agenda.  In fact, I think it's safe to say there is nothing about these results that will endear us to the Left.  No wonder all the might and power of the Elites is headed our direction!  As we say, here in Texas, "It's fixin' to be one helluva fight!"
     So, I would ask the rest of you across the nation -- and the world -- to pray for us in Texas.  I don't expect this to be a "gentlemanly", fair, or moral campaign.  In fact, it's likely to be an all-out brawl for the soul of this great state.  But let me remind you; if we fail to fight off this incursion, the rest of you will be ripe for the pickin'.  So I ask you to stand with us and fight the good fight.  The heroes of Texas history once drew a line in the sand at the Alamo.  This time, we are using the ballot box to defend our freedoms, and may God be the tip of our spear.

Galatians 5:1    "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."

Sometimes You Just Have To Do The Unpopular Thing

     I don't usually like to sink into the depths of the political mire, but I can't help but notice an anomaly on Capitol Hill.  Apparently Ted Cruz is wearing out his welcome.  The junior Senator from the great state of Texas just wants to play by the rules --- the rules of the Constitution, that is.  And that doesn't seem to sit easy with the entrenched members of Congress.  He's even managed to piss off his fellow members of the Grand Old Party.

     I guess they're simply used to following a prescribed manuscript that is the correct line of behavior.  Take last week's vote on raising the debt limit.  The cronies in both parties tried to sneak an end-run around the American people.  None of them wanted their names attached to an increase of the country's $17 trillion (and climbing) debt.  They just wanted it done quietly and quickly.  It would make their jobs so much easier!
     But Ted Cruz is a man with character and a conscience.  He was determined that our elected officials would be accountable to the American people; no anonymous votes.  If a Senator wanted to add more debt to the shoulders of his constituents, then he ought to be man enough to own up to it.  That's why there was an allegedly acrimonious meeting last week at which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed waiving the 60-vote threshold normally required to advance legislation.  Not so fast!  Cruz stood up and declared he would not let his fellow Republicans escape responsibility for their part in advancing the debt-limit bill.  He said he would force at least five Republicans to vote with Democrats to overcome the procedural hurdle. And let their names be known!
     Now, it goes without saying, that this is not how Party politics usually goes down on the Hill.  I think that power has corrupted 99% of the men and women who supposedly represent us, and they have lost their way.  But Senator Cruz not only wants to make them accountable, he wants to publicly call them out by claiming they intentionally tried to mislead the public.  And they are infuriated!
     “In the 13 months I’ve been in the Senate it has become apparent to me the single thing that Republican politicians hate and fear the most … is when they’re forced to tell the truth. It makes their heads explode,” Cruz told conservative radio host Mark Levin. “The Republican members of the Senate, they all wanted the perfect show vote.”
     It seems pretty clear to me -- Ted Cruz is a man who believes that the rules are the rules, the laws are the laws, and we need to follow them and not break them for political expediency.  Yet there are still Republicans that apparently can't understand this moral man.  They still see everything through a political lens, and question his ability to have a long Senate career.  Has it ever occurred to them that he didn't come to DC to establish "a long career"?  That, maybe, he came with true intentions; to follow through on the promises he made the folks back home and represent their wishes instead of the oligarchy's?  Their ignorance is on full display in this remark:  “At the end of the day Ted Cruz made McConnell have a 60-vote limit and the debt ceiling still passed. It’s not like he stopped the debt limit from being passed."  That wasn't the point!  It was about refusing politicians the opportunity to lie to the American people, and say they are legislating on our behalf.  It was about honesty and integrity!
     In the end, 12 Republican senators—including McConnell and Texas's other Senator, John Cornyn—voted to advance the bill, which was then approved 55-43 and sent to President Obama. The bill will lift the $17 trillion debt ceiling until March 2015.
     All this political nonsense shows us why term limits are the only way to go.  When a majority of those on Capitol Hill have become millionaires during their tenure, it can only mean one thing:  they are looking out for their interests and not ours.
     "In my view, every Senate Republican should have stood together and said what every one of us tells our constituents back home, which is that we will not go along with raising the debt ceiling while doing nothing to fix the underlying out-of-control spending problem," Cruz said.  That's what the American people have demanded ... stop the spending!  And it is what Senator Ted Cruz is trying to accomplish, even as his colleagues keep adding more fuel to the fire.
     I know one man can't reform the greed and corruption that has overtaken our halls of Congress.  But as long as Ted Cruz remains a righteous man, I will pray that God's protection and wisdom reigns down upon him.
   
Isaiah 33:15-16    "He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure."





   

It's Time To Take Off The Masks

     I have continually tried to keep my posts out of the political arena, and for a very good reason.  As I have stated many times before, I approach this reality called life from a Biblical worldview.  I do not think politics can fix what ails us; we are spiritually bankrupt.  However, that being said .... we do have to live in this world, and politics definitely affects our present and future lives.  While we have to rise above the machinations of man and live our lives according to a higher law, we are under the earthly control of institutions allowed by God.
     I'm telling you all this because it is time to get honest with ourselves and each other.  Many of us have lived our entire lives thinking that our government consisted of two distinct parties .... Democrat and Republican; Liberal and Conservative.  We've thought that these two ideologies offered us two recognizably different and separate choices when it came to how we wished to be governed.

     But if you have been paying attention during the last decade or so, it should be apparent that we have been fooled by the powers that be, and for a very long time.  As Americans began waking up and becoming more aware of what was going on behind the curtain, we came to realize that there wasn't quite as much difference between the two parties as they wanted us to think.  Actually, there was only one agenda that both parties subscribed to .... a reform movement that believed better conditions for the country could be found in collectivism and bloated government; individual freedoms and limited government only served to marginalize the electorate.  This movement, called Progressivism, proposed reshaping society, culture and the government to the practice or principle of giving a group of citizens priority over each individual in it.
     As this philosophy of "Progressivism" took root in our political mindset, lo and behold, it infected both parties.  So, while you might have thought you have had a clear choice in the last few cycles of elections, in reality, your candidates served the same idol and were simply wearing elephant or donkey masks.
     BUT --- and this is a big "but" --- there was a remnant of Americans who weren't being fooled.  They knew our history, and realized that our country was being hijacked by an extremely "un-American" belief system.  And the beauty of this awakening was that it spoke to Americans of all races,  ages, economic status and party affiliations.  They liked the principles of our Founding Fathers, and had no desire to dismantle the Constitution; nor were they willing to abandon the freedom and liberty that our forefathers fought so hard to preserve.
     And while this group of Americans could fall under any number of banners... Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, or Independents, they weren't interested in creating havoc and disassembling the two-party system.  They earnestly wanted to work within the Conservative wing of the Republican Party.  They, perhaps naively, thought we could all get along and that the Grand Old Party was sincerely interested in  listening to those who were registered Republicans.  At least that's what they pretended to do when they appeared on the nightly news.  But therein lies a huge part of the problem.
     You see, if you are of a conservative bent, and you think you are getting the truth from "our side" on Fox News, I am here to tell you that you must be very discerning in what you believe.  I urge you to consider news sources outside the Mainstream Media (and I put Fox in that category).  By now you should be aware of the fight within the GOP between the Old Guard and the Young Turks.  In fact, it has become quite vicious as new, young Constitutional-based representatives of the people are actually trying to accomplish in DC what they were elected to do --- govern according to the wishes of the people.  But the PID (Progressives in Disguise) Republicans don't want to change the status quo.  All the rancor and bickering back and forth is just part of the political shenanigans to make us think they are working for us.  Nothing is getting done because neither party wants anything to change!
     So if my opinion is something you have perceived on your own, then congratulations!  You are aware of those elected officials and organizations that are truly working for us, the people; and you recognize who the wolves in sheep's clothing are.  If this is truly something you've never considered, then I highly urge you to read this article, from a very informative alternative news source.  You will be shocked at the subterfuge and collusion going on in the name of conservatism.
     After you recover from the shock of this article, I want you to pray for this country.  There are some very sincere "lovers of freedom" who are trying to get our country back to its Constitutional roots, and they are being hounded and pursued by some very dishonorable and corrupt individuals.  I truly believe that we are on the cusp of great changes in this country.  We are truly seeing the battle between Good and Evil.  Either the embers of individual responsibility and liberty will be fanned, and ignite into a vigorous group of elected patriots who want to lead us back to our foundational freedoms; or these smoldering embers will be snuffed out and the tide of progressivism will extinguish our right of self-determination forever.
     Inform yourselves!  Don't accept our elected representatives based on face value or the letter behind their name.  Know what they stand for and who is in the background supporting them.  Make them take off their masks! The elections in 2014 are either going to be the saving grace of our country, or be our last dying breath of freedom.  Don't listen to the rhetoric and the words from those who claim to have your best interest at heart; watch what they do.  And may our God, who blessed this great country into existence, forgive us of our sins, and return us to His will and purpose.

1 Peter 2:16    "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
   

He Should Be Ashamed!

     Senator John McCain's arrogance seems never-ending.  It seem pretty obvious to me that he is thumbing his nose at us... or at least at the men, women and families of the military.  I'm sure you've seen the picture of him playing online poker during the 3.5 hour Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting.  In my eyes, this was a pretty important gathering of our political elite on whether or not to formally authorize the use of U.S. forces in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian refugees.  Yet, Senator McCain couldn't give it his undivided attention.  Amusing himself seemed more important.
     After the photo went viral, McCain seemed to laugh it off, with a tweet which said, "Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!"  So, maybe I'm just a little too cynical, but the world sits on the verge of WW III, and 3 hours is too long for him to dedicate to a decision that could potentially affect the future of this country ... let alone thousands of American lives? In case he hasn't noticed, the enemies of America have been very vocal about threatening our homeland should we make a decision to strike Syria.
     Perhaps Mr. McCain has already made up his mind, and doesn't need to hear any further testimony.  But I think he owes something to the military personnel and families who will be called upon to react to the decision that he and his colleagues ultimately make.  I think he owes it to them to at least give his full attention to the matter at hand; and not to be coy and frivolous with his words when he is caught being negligent.

Gold Star Mom, Debbie Lee

     Maybe as an average citizen, my words don't bear much weight.  But Gold Star mother Debbie Lee has every right to weigh in with her opinion.  Not only is Debbie the mother of the first U.S. Navy Seal to be killed in Iraq, but she is one of Senator McCain's constituents.  In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Ms. Lee said,  “It infuriates me! We are facing the possibility of sending our sons and daughters to a war, conflict, military action or whatever politically correct term you use – an action that could change the world as we know it – and McCain couldn’t care less."
     Lee continued, “McCain is so bored that he needs to play poker on his iPhone and then when caught jokes about it. How disgraceful!  Is that what the business of government has come to for so many who fill the halls of Congress? Is everything a gamble, with the best bet being the biggest bet? Has McCain already doubled down on war, since he knows the hand that is to be dealt?”
     She concluded, “I’m sorry the lives of our brave warriors who are fighting for our freedoms bore you. I’m sorry my country, the country my son died for, bores you. I’m sorry that the risk of war bores you. Senator, it is time for you to resign your position as my Senator.”
     I know I'm repeating myself, but Debbie Lee has every right to speak out as she did.  I have seen her speak in person, and believe me, she is passionate about standing up for men and women in uniform.  She has suffered the heartbreak of losing a son in war.  And to witness the haughtiness with which our elected leaders decide the fate of our children's lives must be an indescribable pain.  Her son followed the orders of such men as John McCain and performed his duty heroically.  Navy officers said that Marc died after single-handedly fighting off enemy fighters as his team rescued a wounded soldier. He fired 100 rounds of ammunition before being killed.
     Don't you think the memory of Marc Lee, and the futures of many more like him, deserve John McCain's serious contemplation and undivided attention?  His action and his response are a disgrace to the uniform that he, himself, once wore.

Isaiah 49:15    "Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you."

Pawn Of The Devil

     You may find me a little too abrasive today, but I am simply flabbergasted!  There is no other way to express my consternation at a U.S. Senator equating a jihadist yelling "Allahu Akbar!" with a Christian proclaiming "Thank God!"  Yet that is exactly what Senator John McCain said when interviewed on Fox News.  And I will not let his callous remark go unanswered!  It offends me, and frankly, I find it irreverent and profane.
     Is Senator McCain delusional?  Can he possibly be so politically correct, (or such a war hawk), that he can honestly lie on national television and expect to deceive the American people?
     I would like to inform the good Senator that even Wikipedia is more truthful than he is.  This is their official definition:  Allahu Akbar is often translated simply as 'God is great.' Most Muslims, however, object to the use of the word 'Allah' to mean God, in the general sense, or specifically Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc. Therefore, it means that 'Allah' (the Muslim God) is greatest' or even 'Allah' is greater (than your god).

     Now I would be willing to accept the "God is great" line of reasoning, if the actions of those shouting it should prove they were merely expressing the same reverent worship of their god as other religions exhibit.  But I challenge McCain (or anyone for that matter) to show me an instance when it was shouted in a spirit of joyous exultation over the goodness of their god.  I seem to recall only death, destruction and rage whenever this phrase is shouted.  And there is an implied challenge that belief in any other god is not to be tolerated; especially Jehovah, Almighty God of both Christians and Jews.
     And to say that "Thank God!" is equal in its meaning or its implication is to willfully misrepresent historic events.  As Flight 93 plummeted to the ground in the fields of Pennsylvania, could you picture the Christians on board shouting, "Thank God"?  As Nidal Hasan committed mass murder at Fort Hood in 2009, can you imagine those fighting to survive shouting "Thank God"?  And as Nick Berg was being beheaded in Iraq in 2004, do you think he wanted to shout, "Thank God"?  Yet that is what Senator McCain would have you believe by equating the phrases of praise.
     So when the Fox News interviewer played a video of rockets slamming into government-held districts in central Syria, and implied that the chanting of the Arab phrase betrayed ties to terrorism, McCain became aggressive in his defense of the mantra.
     In further questioning our rush to war in Syria, the interviewer stated, “I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit."
     “Would you have a problem with an American person saying ‘Thank God? Thank God?’” McCain asked, clearly irritated. “That’s what they’re saying.  Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”  Oh really, Senator?  You can guarantee it?
     Are you willing to bet the lives of your children and grandchildren on that?  Because that is what you are asking the American people to do ... to sacrifice lives on the battlefield and possibly in the streets of America!  I for one, am deeply distressed that the good Senator from Arizona is either this dumb or that deliberately deceptive.  And I don't think he's dumb!

Matthew 4:10    "Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.' "

A Ridiculous Claim

     I debated whether to engage in the "rodeo clown" debate that is the latest controversy capturing the attention of Middle America.  In case you are unaware of the story, a rodeo clown appearing at the Missouri State Fair wore, as a part of his costume, a mask of our President.  And in the running gag between him and the announcer, the audience was asked if they wanted to see the clown "run down by a bull".  By the response of the crowd, the question was not offensive.

     Not so when it comes to the Mainstream Media or the hallowed halls of Congress.  Everyone and their grandmother is offended, so it seems.  From calls for a life-time ban of the rodeo clown from performing at state fairs, to demands for "heads to roll" and financial consequences to be levied against everyone involved (clown, venue, and the Missouri Rodeo Clown Association), this incident has evolved into the "realm of the ridiculous."  Oh, and let's not forget the eagerly-sought-after claim of racism.
     While there are those who want to label the stunt as "unconscionable, inappropriate, offensive and disrespectful" of the office of the Presidency, I have one question for them.  Where were you during the insanely ugly character attacks that were taking place on the last President?  Remember the college professor who encouraged his students to write an essay that involved the murder of the President?  Why weren't you calling for his life-time ban from teaching?  Or financial consequences for the University that employed him?
     Why is there freedom of speech for those who hate conservative ideology, the Constitution, or God; but the First Amendment doesn't apply to those of us who disagree with you?  And now Missouri's state branch of the NAACP has rushed to call the incident a "hate crime".  From my understanding, a hate crime generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against a racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity.  I don't see how any of those can be proven based on the statement or actions in the arena that night.
     And racism isn't the only charge, Mary Ratliff, the NAACP President is levying.  “We are taxpayers in the state of Missouri,” she said in an interview last week, “and when taxpayer money is utilized to discredit and be disrespectful to our president, whether he be black, white, Hispanic, Latina…it is an outrage.”  Again, I go back to the University professor and his outrage against President Bush.  That college receives funding from the American taxpayer.  Where was the NAACP then?
     Even the Senator from Missouri is climbing on the "we have to protect the American taxpayer" bandwagon, insinuating that the Missouri State Fair receives federal funding, which must now be considered.  There are even those calling for the Department of Justice and the Secret Service to investigate!  Do I have to say it again ... remember the University professor?!?
     Whether the White House is quiet on this incident because it is nonsense and unworthy of such hubbub, or they are leaving it to others to stir the flames of racism, hate and controversy, I find it undeserving of such debate.  There are far more reprehensible actions we should be shining the national spotlight on ... is this really what we should be focusing on?  Does it really rival Benghazi, Egypt, the IRS or NSA?  REALLY?  And at the root of all this dissension is the unanswered question .... was it the wearing of the mask that you found offensive and beneath the dignity of the Presidency, or was it that you just didn't like what it stood for to that audience?  Perhaps that is what we should really be debating.

 Ephesians 4:31-32    "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."     

A Symbol Of America In Decline

     I have to get this off my chest!  How did we, as a once God-fearing nation, get here?  How can a scumbag like Anthony Weiner even be considered worthy of running for political office?  I admit that I am editorializing and expressing my own opinion ... you are free to agree or disagree.  But what is wrong with America that this man is once again in the national spotlight?
     The mayorship of New York City is arguably one of the most important positions of leadership in America; perhaps the world.  New York is a  global power city, and exerts a significant impact upon commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, research, technology, education, and entertainment.  It is (regrettably, in my opinion) the home of the United Nations Headquarters.  It is an important center for international diplomacy, and has been described as "the cultural capital of the world."  And, New Yorkers, you want this man to represent you?

     Do you really want him to make decisions for the 18.9 million people that make up the New York Metropolitan Area; or be in charge of the largest economical region and a $1.3 trillion-plus budget?  You might not realize it, but New York is a global hub of international business and commerce and is one of three "command centers" for the world economy (along with London and Tokyo).  How will Mr. Weiner find time to conduct the city's business, between his sexting and Twitter-ing?
     What are you thinking, New York?  The man was forced to resign from Congress amid his shameful sexual exploits, and here it is, barely two years later, and you're ready to let him be in charge of your city, which controlled 40% of the world's finances by the end of 2008, making it the largest financial center in the world?
     At the time that I am writing this blog, his poll numbers are dropping.  He has admitted to continued transgressions, and his politically convenient wife is standing by his side ... although several feet away from him, as if even she finds him too dirty to touch.  Perhaps by the time this is posted, he will have found enough humility to spare himself, his family, the proud city of New York, and our nation any further embarrassment.
     But for me, this goes beyond embarrassment.  It reeks of shame.  I know that this is a rarely felt emotion in today's "tolerant" society.  But perhaps we should take a good look at this old-fashioned word.  Shame is a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.  The problem with our culture today, is that we no longer want anyone to be humiliated, nor are we willing to pronounce any behavior wrong.  Our new mantra is TOLERANCE.
     If Huma is willing to tolerate his atrocious behavior, who are we to pass judgment?  The problem with that line of thinking is that there are no boundaries.  His sexting partners are quite a bit younger than Anthony; the latest, only 22.  If society thinks this is Ok, then what is to prohibit him from trying to attract younger and younger girls?  And what does this tell our daughters and granddaughters?  That it is Ok to be used by powerful men for their cheap sex thrills?  And then to get your 15 minutes of fame on Inside Edition?
     There was a time when such scandals would have been declared disgraceful and sinful, while silent and influential behind-the-scenes power brokers would have done everything in their authority to keep it quiet.  Now these same power brokers go on TV to defend such monsters and chastise the public for judging them.  Oh, what a wicked web we weave!

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14     "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil."