The 5th Podium

The Church Of Sodom

2020-04-02T13:25:00.000-06:00

In the Bible, in the Old Testament, there is a specific list of charges brought against Sodom. That is, the Abrahamic era sister city to Gomorrah, both of which were destroyed by fire and brimstone. Before the potential opponents of this statement speak up, yes there is now scientific evidence; and no, we're not discussing that in this article.
The actual account in Genesis 19 of this city's visitation by two angels details the intent of the city's men to engage in rape and "unnatural relations." Verse 7 of Jude states clearly that they had given themselves over to sexual immorality. For some reason, while these two portions get major play when speaking of the sins of Sodom, the other list is repeatedly and (in this writer's opinion) criminally ignored. It is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. [KJV]

For those of us so-called "heathens" that prefer a more modern and understandable language:

Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out as you have seen. [NLT]

The reason I bring this up will become clear in a moment. First, I want to point out that the order of words and items listed within Scripture is of the utmost importance. For instance, Proverbs 18:21 does not say "Life and death are in the power of the tongue" as is most often misquoted. Rather, it says "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." Humans, even those who follow wholeheartedly after the Christ, are more apt to speak evil (death) than blessing (life). Thus, death is addressed first with the warning that follows: "Those who love it will eat its fruit." The message of course being so clearly stated in the children's song: Be careful little mouth what you speak.

Second, I want to briefly turn our attention to the showdown taking place between our government and various church leaders within our Christian community.

The Dissenters

Rodney Howard-Browne

For those of you wondering why the name Rodney Howard-Browne sounds so familiar, you need look no further than the so-called "Toronto Blessing."

I am more than a little familiar with the event. Some former pastors of mine bought into the move quite heavily, even diverting a portion of church giving to help fund "God's work" at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church. I can say that what started as a genuine move towards repentance became a circus of promises and pandering when Howard-Browne and protege Randy Clark took the wheel.

Rather than encourage the continued direction of repentance, fasting, and prayer, the two men moved to a different tact: They stated that God wanted to bless everyone. This is always welcome news to people who don't necessarily want to be reminded of their sin, but want to prosper in spite of it. And since blessing is always in response to giving, the promises/pandering cycle began. Basically, this consists of the promise ("God wants to bless you in a mighty way tonight!") followed by the totally uncoerced urge to give money ("God loves a cheerful giver and will bless you abundantly beyond what you could ever ask or think!")

You may also remember that Rodney Howard-Browne claimed that Hurricane Irma had no teeth, despite its causing 50 deaths and power outages for 5.5 million people. He has been a part of not one but two multi-level marketing schemes; and I use that particular word because the first defaulted on a $182 million dollar loan while being charged with fraud and infringement, among other things. The second has been the subject of class action lawsuits, allegations of tax fraud, and several questionable out of court settlements.

Repeatedly, this man has shown by word and deed a serious lack of discernment and wisdom. This holds true to the present, when on Monday, March 30, 2020, he was arrested for violating emergency federal, state and county orders banning large gatherings. These orders are a response to the novel (meaning no inherent or acquired immunity in humans) virus COVID-19, which is officially a pandemic (meaning it is infecting and killing people en masse around the globe.)

Rather than utilize his impressive social media platform, his highly visible websites, or any of his traditional media offerings (radio, television, etc), Howard-Browne urged people to physically attend services. During a pandemic. With a virus that can be spread through contact, coughing or sneezing. That's killing people within days of detection. Specifically, those who are elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Did I mention that his church is in Florida, where nearly a third of the population meets those criteria?

Tony Spell

Mark Anthony Spell; whom most know as Pastor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; is not as widely known as our first dissenter. He is a family man, and by all accounts a good husband and father. Many within his congregation have rallied behind their chosen spiritual leader with statements regarding his character. This, in my opinion, says a great deal more about him than whatever the nightly news might bring up.

However, even the best intentioned folk are prone to error. While I will not speak to Spell's character or person; I do not know him, and thus would otherwise be guilty of both gossiping and maligning him if I did; I will raise some questions and draw some conclusions.

Spell was charged with, though not arrested for, six misdemeanors on Tuesday, March 31, 2020. These charges are emergency powers specific: Violation of Governor's Order LA R.S. 29:724E. Local news affiliate WAFB cited attorney Hillar Moore just a few weeks earlier as saying, "Hopefully, there will be some alternatives this church can use to ‘congregate’ and pray through other means that comply with the restrictions. Summonses and prosecution will be the least favorable means to have well-intended people comply." Spell continued in calling for services, so those least favorable means were employed.

Where Lanes Merge

The Points Of Defense

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

Pastor Tony Spell leads an Apostolic Pentecostal church. Rodney Howard-Browne leads a Word-of-Faith church. Pastor Tony Spell has been hailed as a wonder-worker by some of his congregants. Rodney Howard-Browne has proclaimed himself "God's bartender." Pastor Tony Spell has loudly proclaimed his attendance numbers and intent to continue meeting. Rodney Howard-Browne has done the same.

These two men are quite different in their doctrinal beliefs. If Life Tabernacle Church holds to traditional Apostolic beliefs, they have significant theological differences as well. So what causes two men, from two different backgrounds and disciplines to do the same thing?

It could be said that they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Certainly there have been other points in history where the Spirit of God has led multiple people in concert with one another without their knowledge. No doubt that is what each man might claim. Certainly that is what some of their supporters have been saying already. If indeed it is the Holy Spirit, then nothing in their words and actions can/will contradict Scripture.

Naturally, the first passage that comes to mind is Hebrews 10:25, which says not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. This was said to followers of the Christ amidst intense persecution, and should always be read in its full context as well. The next thing that comes to mind are the words of Jesus Himself. In Matthew 22:21, He says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This was specific to taxes, but it certainly applies to study, prayer, praise, and worship as well. Finally, there is Acts 5:29, in which Peter and the other apostles tell the Jewish leaders that they must obey God and not men. As they were answering officials demanding they cease preaching, this certainly applies! (For the record, accounts such as that found in Daniel 3, fall in lockstep with this account in Acts, and as such are not detailed here.)

The House Of Cards

Photo by Nicolette Attree from Pexels

Christians have developed a neat little double standard when it comes to obeying the Word of God, I'm afraid; not to mention laws of the land. When a law of God goes against our human nature and/or desires, we say we're under grace so the law does not apply. Yet when a law of man also interferes with our empire building; or genuine good intent; we default to saying we must honor the law of God above all else. Much of this prepackaged doctrine based solely upon a single statement by a man who later had to be set straight by the last inductee to the original apostles club (Paul.) Concerned? Confused?

Let me make two vital points, and I'll start with the easiest to digest first.

If the government were to outlaw Christianity, by all means we disobey. In this, it is not a matter of outlawing a religion, thereby forcing us to choose between God's law or man's. Rather in that situation, the government has outlawed a culture. A heritage. Literally, who we are as children of God. So it's not one law versus another; it's one law versus a people's very identity. This is why, when that day does come, many will "fall away." It won't be Life for them, just as it is not now for many. It's simply a belief or a good idea that can be abandoned in the face of opposition.

The second point is far harder to hear. In fact, I am struggling to write it because it goes against almost everything I was raised to believe. It is found in Romans 13:1-5. The quick takeaway is that we are to obey our governing authorities because they are appointed by God. Anyone rebelling against them rebels against God. There are all kinds of stipulations people place upon and within this passage these days. The problem is that Paul gave no qualifiers, and he was writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit. So if God does not change, then we are without justification or excuse in this matter.

I've heard most of the arguments against this understanding. Paul wasn't writing in our day and age. No, he was writing in an age where actions our society today still considers abhorrent were acceptable and commonplace. Paul wasn't talking about a government that was as godless as ours. No, he was speaking about a government far worse; one that had multiple gods which allowed people to do almost anything that passed into their minds. Paul was speaking about church authority, not secular governments. Honestly, no, he wasn't. This rationale requires that linguistic gymnastics be taken to a whole other level of extra. Extra foolishness, extra ignorance, extra rebellious. Paul clearly speaks of the authority wielding a sword to exact God's wrath upon wrongdoers. Unless someone wants to argue also for vigilante pastors, this cannot be speaking about church leadership.

The bottom line is the one that no one, let alone yours truly, actually wants to acknowledge and submit to: That regardless of what government we are under, and who is running it, it was GOD who appointed it for His own purpose and ultimate glory. And this, friends, is where we come full circle. Because no one wants to submit to the Lord on this issue, we have fallen very, very far down the devil's rabbit hole.

The Church Of Sodom

Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony (being overfed, indulgent), laziness, apathy (the poor and needy were at her door), and after placing themselves in the position of God, began committing those other things which are so often spoken of as their only sin. Sodom may, at one point, have been a good city. A decent place to live. We don't know, because the depths to which they sunk were all that is remembered.

The Christian Church today has its genuine, God fearing, Christ following, soul winning, example setting believers. It also has more than its fair share of charlatans, predators, fiends, fools and hardheaded boasters. It has a good number of genuine scholars and teachers desiring to know the truth and communicate it to others. It also has far too many ignorant and deceived leaders who don't know they're walking into a trap; as well as manipulative and power hungry megalomaniacs who set such traps.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

In this case, we see two churches whose leaders are standing in violation of the nation's authorities. Forget that our Constitution grants the federal government special powers in situations such as these; forget that in such times, these men have no constitutional ground to stand upon. Rather, let us look at their actions in light of what we've just gone over.

We live in an age when we can gather virtually. We can gather via phone, video conference, or a host of other ways. There is no need to gather physically, except that it honors tradition. There are some things more important than tradition, such as keeping people alive and well. Physical gathering is important, but not as vital as protecting the lives and health of those within the church.

We are also capable of rendering unto God what is His without setting foot into a single church building. As a point of fact, our homes ought to be our personal sanctuaries. There should be no reason to feel as though God is closer in some other building and further away at home. Our study of Scripture, prayer, praise and worship can all take place within our homes and with family. No fancy church building needed.

We have not been told to cease preaching. We have been told to temporarily cease gathering physically. Emphasis on temporarily and physically. Were this "persecution," as both men have claimed, there would be no gathering of any kind; there would be no pretense of temporary; Howard-Browne would not have been allowed to post bail and Spell would certainly have been arrested and detained; and properties would have been seized and occupied. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Ministers have been encouraged to continue preaching, praying and seeing to the needs of their congregations - Just without gathering in large crowds. For now. While this killer virus without a cure runs rampant.

Now since no one has been told to cease preaching; and no one has been told to bow down and pray to a statue of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi; there is not one biblical justification, excuse, rational, or imperative for standing against our government. Not one.

What do these actions prove, then?

In the very best case scenario, it proves that both men are severely deficient in the areas of wisdom, discernment, biblical scholarship, and connection with the Holy Spirit. In the instance of Pastor Spell, some of his theological training may be at fault for a portion of his actions; the apostolic Pentecostal movement traditionally teaches no authority but God, in contradiction of Romans 13:1 which states in part that there is no authority but that which is from God. In the instance of Howard-Browne, it is possible that because of his Word of Faith and Prosperity theology and doctrines, he genuinely believed he could simply cast COVID-19 out of the building if not out of people.

In the very worst case scenario, both men are secretly working for a demonic shadow government bent upon destroying humanity and creating a scorched earth upon which may dwell Cthulhu. Probably not this scenario, though. I'd say almost certainly not.

The most likely scenario? Neither of these men have actually heard from God. Neither are being led by the Holy Spirit. This is the most logical conclusion given what we already know: God doesn't change; He doesn't contradict His Word; their actions contradiction His Word; ergo, He is not leading them.

More troubling about these instances is the fact that years from now, they will be looked upon as a reason to create an agency for the monitoring and regulation of places of worship. Their actions, and those of others yet to act out rashly and foolishly, are what are building the foundation of the very one world government they seek to oppose.

The most troubling thing in the present day is that their actions directly violate the law of God, while claiming it was being upheld. We are told by the Christ to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents; both of these creatures avoid threats. They don't court danger. We are told to care for the old, the widows, the sick and the orphans; luring these most at risk categories out to a single gathering location is not caring for them. It is the exact and precise opposite.

Original Photo by kailash kumar from Pexels - Alteration by AJ Unlimited

Finally, we're told that a pastor's job is to safeguard the flock. This is the very reason the term "pastor" is used; they are literally under-shepherds to the Good Shepherd. What do you think happens to an under-shepherd when the lead shepherd discovers they've intentionally led them through diseased lands and poisoned air?

The core truth of the matter is as chilling as it is simple: Both of these men broke laws, both of God and of man. Both should be held accountable - And ultimately, both men will be. When the Christ speaks of the judgment of sheep and goats, notice that He does not say "you had me come to you." He said "you came to visit me."

Pastors, reverends, and ministers across the United States, understand this clearly: We will be held accountable not only for every sickness and every death caused by our stubbornness and rebellion, but for every single soul we put in danger by not keeping the law of God by obeying the law of man.

(Author's Note: This article represents a radical departure for me from a doctrine I've come to understand is wrong. I encourage all visitors to do the reading for yourselves, don't just take my word for it. God remains sovereign, and there will be times when He calls us to rise up. When that happens however, based upon Scripture, it will always accompany forced idolatry and/or an attempt to eliminate His people.)

Time To Grow Up America

2020-03-29T20:19:00.000-06:00

To The Rescue...?

I am genuinely unused to defending a sitting president during a national crisis. It's not something that I believe I have ever had to really worry about. In my lifetime, there have not been a vast number of crises on a national level, so I guess I was simply assuming that people were able to recognize certain facts in such situations. Facts like response times, executive actions, congressional actions, border closings, and so forth.

Things that are explicitly intended to address a unique and specific event have historically had some opposition. As 'Honest Abe' once said, "you cannot please all the people all the time." Generally, that opposition, even in hindsight, can be understood. During the Civil War, it was a few Senators who opposed several pieces of legislation in favor of handling the problem another way. During World War Two, several members of Congress wanted the president to handle further engagement differently. Never did anyone simply oppose something solely for the sake of resisting.

So imagine my surprise when I find out that the Covid-19 stimulus legislation has been jam packed with a bunch of useless, pointless, bovine scat. I'm being entirely serious, here. Provisions for the Kennedy Center for instance, are not, as some have ignorantly claimed, to ensure employment security. The exact same sum of money was lobbied for about four months ago; for the exact same place; and it was to be used for new paint and flooring. Guess what that provision is marked as in the legislation? "Maintenance." That is just one example of dozens that have nothing to do with Covid-19.

The Freedom Of The Press

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

Then I discover that certain publications are claiming that the president's actions are "inadequate." One in particular ran a headline that said "Due To Several Missteps US Now Epicenter Of Covid-19." This publication went on to talk about all the things that they felt were done wrong. Mind you, each of these news sources (I use the term loosely) had previously attacked the president for going "too far."

Again, "you cannot please all the people all the time" comes to mind.

When it comes to the press, however, it seems that certain organizations don't even fit into that category properly. I believe we might have to add another line to the Emancipator's observation: "Some people will never allow themselves to be pleased." In the case of some so-called journalists, the president could personally disarm a criminal trying to mug them, and they'll write an article on his use of excessive force.

Intellectual Bankruptcy

Finally, today I heard something that nearly caused my brain to explode. It happened during the Covid-19 briefing. A reporter asked the president what he was planning to do about the airlines, using

Photo by christian buehner on Unsplash

a specific air line by name as an example. The president answered the question; and while he added a lot more information than was probably needed, it was answered. The reporter followed up with: "I guess my question is what do you intend to do about the individual employees and their jobs?"

Folks, I had to turn the briefing off at that point. I saw the comments on various social media platforms, many of which echoed the asinine and clueless idiocy of this pretender to journalism. I saw the usual hotheads using their usual fractured structure, limited vocabulary, and all three emoticons. Normally I would be tempted to reply to such troglodytes, but today I opted out entirely.

Instead, I've chosen to once again write. It's much easier to leave a link than to attempt a conversation, I've learned. Not that I won't make the attempt, mind you. There are simply some people who cannot be reasoned with, and you know those I reference.

Special Education

Now, I'm not going to go into detail about Nancy Pelosi and the flipped bird she gave to the American people, figuratively speaking. I'm not going to get into the various rags once known as respected news sources, either. It's not worth my time to do anything more than mention, and the writers are simply not worthy of my attention, period. Instead, I'm going to address the last issue. The sheer lack of free thinking, common sense, and rational logic. The issue of air lines and air line employees.

Photo by Helloquence on Unsplash

People have been talking about how nothing the president has done has addressed the individual. No measure that has thus far been taken by his administration has, apparently, provided for the individual citizen. These people speak out of their ignorance, whether that is willful or unintended.

Nowhere is this more clearly seen than with this air lines issue. The president stated that the legislation provides a sum of money for these companies to maintain operations and stay above the proverbial water as best they can. He talked about the various top minds he was bringing in to help craft and organize the response. The bottom line was that the air line companies are staying in business and continuing to operate.

The opposition then implied, or directly said in the case of social media comments, that it did nothing to help the employees.

Wow.

The United States has ten major air lines. American Airlines, the largest such company in the world as of 2019, employs over 128,000 people. Delta, the second largest, employs more than 86,000. United: 96,000. Southwest: 60,000. JetBlue: 22,000. Spirit: 7,000. Allegiant: 4,000. Hawaiian: 7,000. In case numbers make your eyes go blurry, this amounts to 410,000 people employed by these companies.

Photo by Gary Lopater on Unsplash

Those of you playing at home might have noticed that I did not include all ten companies. That's because not all of the companies had this information readily available. For the sake of completionism, let's just say that the remaining two (Frontier and Alaskan) each employ the average. That's 51,250 employees; so perhaps too high for those companies. Maybe we just use the low average: 6,000 employees. That's still a total of 422,000 people.

Now here's the next big deal. I rounded down. These air lines directly employ nearly half a million people. They subcontract almost twice that in the United States alone, making that number about 1.5 million. They also lease space in most airports, if you didn't know, meaning they indirectly impact the employment of airport workers. According to a five year old Congressional hearing, air lines also buy an average of 60% of their parts and services from United States companies.

What does all of this mean? What am I driving at?

Folks, especially you pretenders to journalism, if the air line companies go down, at the very least our unemployment rate rises by a half percent almost overnight. Best case scenario in that event. The worst case scenario is far less likely: Everyone they deal with goes under due to their absence and lack of patronage. Most realistic scenario? All the employees of these companies lose their jobs; half of the subcontract employees lose their jobs; massive personnel cutbacks take place in their supply companies (parts, etc), and airports experience massive layoffs. If every major airline in the United States went bankrupt overnight, it would affect a tenth of the US population.

Still wonder why it was so important to make sure that these companies got a financial shot in the arm?

The Spidey Phrase

I will never be in support of big government. I will never be in support of the bailout of a corporation whose CEO or Board played fast and loose with company funds. Nor will I ever be in favor of the government funding lazy and stubborn individuals. Don't read into the above views; understand the context.

We are dealing with a situation which is unlike anything we as a nation have previously dealt with. If there's interest, I'll get into that point in a later installment. Right now, suffice to say that the United States government is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in such situations: Protect its citizens. Many people are not working right now, not due to their own laziness, but because of what is essentially bioterrorism. Companies are not struggling because they made bad choices; they are struggling because of the sudden lack of business.

Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Moreover, a one time tax break on all citizens isn't going to help, nor will it help the various companies and corporations. It's too great a shortfall, taken on too suddenly. In my opinion, this kind of stimulus is the only thing that makes sense; and while I will have a problem with it if the government attempts to extend these benefits beyond the current crisis, it is what is needed right now. The desperate times and desperate measures adage holds true in this highly unusual point in history.

It was for reasons such as this that the framers of the Constitution alloted certain powers to each branch. Not to award cash prizes to pet projects. Not to fund or penalize preferred or distasteful entities. These powers were given to protect the people and infrastructure. It's time we got on board. Keep a watchful eye on our leaders, by all means; but quit debating the piddling and asinine.

In short: It's time to grow up, America.

Globalism Series - Open Borders

2019-12-05T01:47:00.000-07:00

The ultimate goal of the globalist is a united world society, governed by a singular government enacting universal laws, enforced by a world court. This is a goal which is not only incompatible with the vision of the United States and the will of her people; it flies against many other governments and nations and peoples as well. To suggest that this would be a simple task if people would just "cooperate" is to make an ill-informed statement at best.

As discussed in the previous article, the only answer to radically alter the acceptance quotient of the world population is the total elimination of contrary thought. That can be done by the use of social pressure to deviate from independent thought and adhere to the normative mindset defined by those in power. It can be done through the use of political power, by means of criminalizing deviant behavior, expressions, and acts of will. It can be accomplished through the use of mass media's influence on the so-called "Low Information" populous. The ultimate method was demonstrated by Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

The introduction to this series discussed how this is done via society and the changing of language and expression. This subtle change allowed those with a globalist agenda to radically alter the willingness to accept socialistic and communistic philosophy within a few generations. The change is most evident in the fact that while there have been socialists and communists that have run for office in the US before, none have ever enjoyed the support that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now see.

The previous article ended with a statement: "The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders."

As anyone who has followed the news during the Trump Administration is aware, the phrase "Open Borders" has been discussed at length. In fact, it has gotten to the point that few people within the news media are using it any longer. This does not by any means indicate that the drive to establish open borders has ended. If anything, like a shark, the time one should really be on guard is when it can no longer be seen.

Proponents of Open Borders philosophy are not all necessarily globalists. However, every globalist must by necessity support open borders. The difference between the two is that one wants more peace, love and dignity; the other recognizes the reality, which is total power and control. Make no mistake, Globalism uses the first group to drive forward the agenda of the second group.

At this point in play, discussion of no walls or fences on borders has run its course. That conversation will surface again, but for the time being, it has served its purpose. Now is the time to dial back the verbal debate. Now is the time to once more return to working in the shadows. Behind the backs of freedom loving people.

And as such, enter The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Hypergio - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

Within the halls of this massive compound, trials are held and verdicts are handed down which supersede the justice systems already in place within the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute. (Text of Rome Statute) Not all countries which have signed the statute have justice systems. Of those that do, not all such systems work as they should. Thus the ICC serves a needed purpose, yet it can be exploited.

This statute is the same one that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to sign. In both cases, signatures was not ratified by Senate and were later revoked by the succeeding president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned their support for the ICC several times, as well as their desire to see the US come under its jurisdiction. Obama has echoed these sentiments, even going so far as to declare the US a "cooperating observer."

It is through this back and forth relationship with the ICC that the United States of America; which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and has most recently reversed the Obama era cooperation; has now found itself in a battle for sovereignty.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the backdoor to Open Borders in the US.

The Rome Statute explicitly allows the ICC to work and maintain jurisdiction where the signatory nation has no justice system in place, or has a corrupted system in place; think of the trial one might receive in China under Mao. (Incidentally, China is not a signatory.) The ICC has no jurisdiction over nations which have not signed; nor over nations which have rescinded their signatures; nor over nations which have a fully operational justice system and the capacity to prosecute and try criminal cases within that system. Nor does it have jurisdiction over the citizens of those countries, which seems a very redundant thing to write. Unfortunately, as will soon be seen, it must be put into words.

In short, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over the United States, nor its citizens, nor any part of its governmental workings up to and including the military. Those are the guidelines by which the ICC was organized, they are not the opinion of any one person.

Right now, in The Hague within the walls of the International Criminal Court, members of the United States Military are being accused and tried. Not directly, but rather it is being argued that those who are accused of "war crimes," (think Nazi - These are the definitions for the phrase), should stand before the ICC. The information gathered by the ICCs Prosecutor against the US military service members; if indeed it exists; has not been turned over to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible. Rather, it is currently being argued that the ICC can force jurisdiction upon the US, because Afghanistan is a signatory.

While this may not seem like much; indeed, it may seem as though the United States should cooperate in this instance; nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that just by showing up, an official attorney for the US; say a member of the Attorney General's Office; gives the Prosecutor and the ICC at large carte blanche in any matter concerning the United States.

Some will and have argued that that would be fine, as it would apply only in this single case. Again, this is an erroneous statement made from either a grievous lack of insight, or a globalist perspective. Granting the ICC jurisdiction, even in a single matter, establishes precedent. That precedent is the foundation upon which the Globalist agenda seeks to override the sovereignty of the United States. Once the ICC has jurisdiction, the laws of that country become subject to those enacted by the United Nations, and other international bodies (e.g. INTERPOL).

This is the picture of a United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. A Marine is accused of killing a child in front of the child's mother. This is considered to be a war crime according to the case currently being presented in The Hague. The United States Attorney General tells the ICC Prosecutor that the US will handle the matter internally. The ICC at this stage can then point to the Rome Statute and claim that the US is in violation of implied acceptance of the Statute and the rules therein, subjecting the nation as a whole to disciplinary action. This is done by referral to the Assembly of States Parties; their referral to the United Nations with recommendations; and the acceptance by the United Nations to put those recommendations into force.*

To be clear on this last point: Even though the United States has a fully functional and generally sound justice system; and the ICC supposedly operates by the doctrine of complimentarity; the end result is either the loss of sovereignty for the Unites States and increased power for the ICC, or the economic damage such actions as embargoes can have upon a nation's economy.

For the sake of clarity, the doctrine of complimentarity simply states that "[t]he ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." The ICC Prosecutor is at this stage arguing; whether literally or by implication; that the United States is subject to the Statute because of its actions within a member nation (State), and that it is unable to prosecute trials involving accused military members genuinely.

It should be noted that this tribunal in the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going on right now. In fact, it has been going on for the last two days, and has only a day of oral argument left. This is not fiction. This is not sensationalism. This is not "fake news." If ever something was truly deserving of being called fake, it would be every news network and outlet that has failed to cover this story as it should have been.

This is the backdoor by which the Globalists seek to enter. And this is the biggest fight against that agenda yet.

This is the second in a two part series. The previous article in this series can be found here. The introduction can be found here.

*Please forgive the obscene oversimplification of this process. It is far more complicated than presented, however such detail carries with it the threat of boredom in the average reader.

Confessions Of An Angry Driver

2019-10-09T01:02:00.001-06:00

So I have a confession to make.

I am a recovering angry driver.

No, no. It's really true. I'm the driver that will slow down to five under the speed limit when another driver decides to tailgate me. I'm the driver that will match the speed of the vehicle next to me when some moron behind us is weaving back and forth trying to continue their forty over ride to Hell.

I know it's not good. It might not even be "Christian." You know what? There's a reason I don't have any Christian themed stickers or other adornments on our vehicle. Truth is, I genuinely don't want my poor handling of such situations to reflect badly on my Savior.

When a person becomes a follower of Christ, they do change. Sometimes it happens quickly, and other times it happens slowly. Most of the time, it's a varied pace. For instance, an addiction may disappear in a moment, but the swearing might last for years later. Most of the time, things hang on because they aren't so much problems as symptoms of a major issue. Once that big thing is dealt with properly, the symptoms tend to fade away.

Back to driving.

The people that drive with their blinkers on but never turn or change lanes tick me off. When people change lanes with less than a car length between us- My temper flares. When folks go through red lights; not accidentally, mind, but with birds flying; I fight back genuine rage.

I tend to be like Clive Owens' character in the movie Shoot 'Em Up. "Look. I move my finger one inch and other drivers know I intend to change lanes. This guy can't move his finger one lousy inch? What makes him so special?" His character rants a bit more and punctuates his statement by running the guy off the road.

I haven't done that; nor would I; but the temptation has certainly been there!

When bikers decide to ride up the double yellow line, I have to fight the urge to open my door. When they ride up the breakdown lane, I fight the urge to suddenly put on my hazards and pull over. When they tailgate me, I have to keep myself from hitting my brakes.

I'd like to claim that these things are issues of the past. They're not. I'm getting better at handling myself in these situations, but the temptation is absolutely and in no way any less than it was before.

The thing that has changed is that I don't view myself as a bastion of Justice any longer. I used to- I was a rescuer, addicted to injecting myself into situations I had no business being involved with just to say I had rescued someone from something.

That's been dealt with in a large part, though there are still times when that old urge resurfaces. The more it dies away, the more my driving anger simmers down.

It is strange to think that something like a savior complex could directly influence; even birth; a form of angry driving. Yet for me, the connection is unmistakable and undeniable.

In a society that medicates every little issue as if it were the end all be all, the concept of a root issue causing other issues seems to have gone by the wayside. Yet I truly believe that the more we recognize and acknowledge this reality, the more healthy we will become.

This ends the current sidebar. Now back to the regularly scheduled series, which really is in progress. More information was brought to my attention, which after extensive research, has required a total rewrite of part two.

Globalism Series - Globalism

2019-03-19T22:34:00.000-06:00

This series was introduced in the last post, which can be read here. The gist is that Globalism, and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders, is perhaps the worst idea mankind has had. Well, apart from genocide. It is not only unrealistic, it is an open door to global catastrophe, likely ending in a return to the Dark Ages. Globalism was initially viewed as a flight of fancy and usable only for science fiction. Today it has become the delusion that many believe possible. Forwarded slowly and patiently by proponents through various means, Globalism is this era's Imperialism; but with a far more disastrous potential set of consequences.

The "Big Problem"

The biggest problem with Globalism is the existence of enemies of state. That is not to say that there are not other great problems, but this is by far the most immediate.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The concept of Globalism when put simply is this: No individual or sovereign nations, just a single world ruled by a group of individuals. While there are proponents who adhere to a more watered-down variant, the ultimate goal of the Globalist agenda is a singular world government. This means that all currencies, resources and laws must eventually be unified. It also means that all individual systems of government must fall.

Initially this was one of the biggest reasons why many thought that Globalism could never be advanced as a viable possibility. It was suggested that the only way of doing this would be to court anarchy, and anarchists and governments don't readily mix. Thus, if the globalist were to incite anarchy within the nations; and then attempt to set up a world government; it was believed that they would fail miserably.

Proponents of Globalism set upon a far different approach than the one previously mentioned. Rather than inciting anarchy, they simply worked subtly to breed dissatisfaction. It was a far more laborious process that required a long-term commitment, but globalists were willing to make that sacrifice. They introduced the concept of a singular government into every form of media, from educational to entertainment. At the same time, subtle changes were made within society to foster a growing dissatisfaction with current governments specifically, and life in general. An emphasis was placed upon the importance of dreams in the mid to late 1900's, and mass media underscored this message. At the same time, movies, theater, books, art and games were pushing a constant supply of dream material. It was suggested that the current system could not work, resulting in a dreary, post-apocalyptic world. Other offerings suggested that a Utopia could be achieved if only mankind could band together in a common bond. This approach worked.

The problem with the approach was that it did not address the major obstacle to the success of Globalism. That problem was the continued existence and growth of enemies of state; more specifically, those individuals and groups that would seek to work havoc in areas of the world populated by people they hated. Many of these enemies are not dissuaded from mass destruction today, even with the threat of reciprocity, annihilation, trial and imprisonment or execution. Think about this combined with a global society that doesn't restrict travel, and the problem becomes frighteningly clear.

The Attempted Solutions

"AOC"

The way to deal with enemies of state, and for that matter opponents of Globalism, has been debated. Some suggest that the simple act of opening national borders and allowing unrestricted travel will be a grand enough gesture of good will that enemies will simply cease to be enemies. For people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it seems as though belief in the magical solution is all there is to the problem.

Others suggest turning to technology. Utilizing ground sensors, listening posts and video towers to monitor hypothetical borders; without implementing walls, increased border security personnel, or other practical forms of enforcement; will certainly discourage those with vile intent. Andrew Yang, a Democrat Presidential hopeful, has actually laid out something very similar to this approach. (It should be noted that as of yet, he has not openly endorsed Open Borders; but he is on board with AOC's "Free Income" stance, calling his concept "The Freedom Dividend." This alone would require another article.)

Still others suggest that what must happen is to simply do away with national identity. This has already been seen in practice on a smaller scale with attempts to color patriotism as "exceptionalism," describe a desire for secure borders as "racism" and "white supremacy," and various other methods. These individuals are not above twisting a movement to suit the purpose. For instance, the concept of "White Privilege." While originally describing a very real social problem, has also been hijacked for the purpose of shaming a large segment of the population into silence on any national issue. While some still utilize it for its original purpose, be aware that others use it for the sake of virtually bludgeoning a critic into silence. In spite of these guerrilla tactics the Big Problem remains the same, because they have not addressed reality.

The Actual Solution

What few globalists will admit, especially in this political climate, is that there is an extremely obvious and thoroughly effective solution to the Big Problem. Few if any proponents of Globalism will discuss this, because it clearly illustrates the carefully concealed double standard by which they and others of a similar mindset have come to thrive. Make no mistake: Those most powerful proponents embrace Globalism not because it requires harmony, but rather that it demands subjugation. Their altruism is shattered when motivations are broken down to the simplest denominator. They want more power.

The aforementioned Big Problem, then, is a genuine obstacle. It cannot be properly addressed, however. Not until the majority of the population is on board with the life-changing answer to all things, which is the public relations campaign of Globalism.

Photo by Václav Pluhař on Unsplash

The actual solution has also historically been called "The Final Solution." No, not "die Endlösung der Judenfrage," but something far more diabolical. In keeping with the theme, call it "die Endlösung für die Staatsfeinde."

Pure and unaltered Globalism cannot function without unanimous consent. The most powerful proponents know this, and perhaps some of the lesser proponents recognize it also. The answer then is not a pie-in-the-sky alternative to immigration. Nor is it the delusional fantasy of making friends of enemies simply by treating them as friends. These do not address the core failings of humanity, and though Globalism is built upon a solidly humanistic foundation, it recognizes this as fact. Thus the actual solution is the termination of all opponents.

Allow this to sink in for a moment.

Globalism cannot function without everyone agreeing to it. Not everyone does agree. Not everyone will agree. In order for it to be properly implemented and maintained, those in opposition must be dealt with à la Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. No other approach actually eliminates the greatest obstacle to the globalist agenda. Unlike the three beacons of awesomeness mentioned however, this must take place on a global scale.

Breathe Easy... For Now

For those who view the world through the lens of transhumanism; for those who are hopeful agnostics or atheists; or those who hold some other view that takes a greater-than-deserved optimistic view of humanity; the idea of genocide on a global scale is abhorrent. When the summary of this article was shown to a professor emeritus of philosophy, his reaction to the last section's conclusion was a combination of horror and denial. He gave permission to be quoted in whole or in part, but only on the condition of anonymity:

"...I can find no rational reason to dispute your logic, yet I cannot accept it as being a possibility, let alone a probability. Though humanity is capable of great evil, it is also capable of great good. The more humanity evolves, the more likely the tendency towards good. ...Humanity's growth as a species from the earliest examples unto the present day, from physical attributes to ethical reasoning [demand that] ...I can neither dispute nor accept your conclusion due to conflict of interest."

For those who hold fast to the notion that this the only life one gets, and after comes the grave and nothingness, the following advice is given: Breathe Easy. The globalist agenda has been one of slow, steady and subtle change. This makes it highly unlikely that any planet-wide genocide will happen within the next several years. While the growth of Globalism has certainly accelerated, it is unlikely that any large segment of the population will accept such a solution... Yet.

For those who believe that the Bible is real and trustworthy: Breathe Easy... For Now. The book of Revelation clearly shows that the Antichrist rules a one-world government, it is true. It is also clear that only under this same leader does the aforementioned genocide take place. Contrary to popular belief, while the last few presidents may be (or have been) possessed of a spirit of antichrist, not one is the Antichrist.

The real problem facing our society today is not a sudden materialization of Globalism. The real problem is what absolutely must come before Globalism can be achieved.

The real problem is not the "Final Solution" being ratified tomorrow. The real problem is what is being talked about now, on Capitol Hill.

The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders.

Globalism Series Introduction

2019-03-17T16:54:00.000-06:00

There is a myth going around that ought to be addressed. Truthfully, it should have been addressed when it first starting gaining steam, around 2012 or so. However it would appear that few people are willing to bite the bullet and actually give a rational and intelligent rebuttal to this myth. This is due to the fact that to do so would be to court a political maelstrom, and few people know if they could survive such a storm of controversy. As an individual that has dealt with more than his fair share of withering criticism, the idea is not foreign nor is the aversion.

With that stated, it is time to place cards on the table. When first faced with the damaging ideology of globalism, many people chuckled and suggested that it could never gain traction. People are smart. People are intelligent. The idea of a unified world without first taking radical measures to ensure its feasibility could never happen, they said.

Unfortunately, these folks did not foresee the 1960's and 1970's, with their rising emphasis on socialist and communist philosophy. They did not foresee the recession of the 1980's; the persecution of small businesses and self-employed operators in the 1990's; and ultimately, the wide acceptance of socialist and communist philosophy within mainstream society as a result of Bernie Madoff and the Wall Street movement in the early 2000's.

What the political gurus of the 1940's did not foresee has come to pass, and today the myth of Globalism; and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders; has gained greater traction than could ever be thought possible. It has done this, not by taking such radical measures as would be needed to ensure success, but rather by far more nefarious means. It has gotten to this point by subtly and quietly changing small things within the United States: Language, Identity, and Perception.

No one should be so gullible as to assume that globalists are behind every subtle change in our society. It should still be noted that as people came forward with ideas that fit the globalist agenda, these found immediate funding and support from very powerful folk. For instance, in 1970, the term "politically correct" was used in an essay by Toni Cade Bambara in reference to her concept of proper masculine behavior. This phrase was then slowly introduced into society over the next twenty years. By 1991, even the New York Times recognized a cultural revolution of sorts was taking place in regards to the phrase. Nowadays, it is unlikely that one can tell a joke without being labeled "politically incorrect" and "insensitive." (The likelihood of this leading to the death of stand-up comedy ought to be another article entirely... Hmm...)

The result of subtle changes within society has been the acceptance of Globalism as a viable possibility, rather than its reality of being a Utopian pipe dream. The truth is that it is a grand scale delusion, much the same as the philosophy of Socialism. That philosophy when implemented as a governing political system has led to destruction in every nation in which it was attempted. Globalism, if implemented, would go much farther: It would lead to global destruction.

To be clear, the term "global destruction" should not be understood as being the same as apocalypse, wherein the world has come to an end and is unable to sustain life on the whole. Rather, it means that everything which allows this planet to function as habitable for human life in modern times would cease to exist through systematic elimination and unanticipated consequences. That statement may seem heavy-handed, but it is not made without serious consideration and thought.

In the next two article, Globalism as a whole will be examined, as will the Open Borders philosophy. It is the hope of this writer that there are enough genuinely free-thinking people left in the world to combat this myth. Otherwise, we may be thrust back to the Dark Ages as early as 2020.

What Has Been Will Be Again

2019-03-13T00:29:00.001-06:00

This may be an excellent likeness of someone you know...

Hysteria. Delirium. Panic.

These words describe the mental and emotional state of nearly every lawmaker in the United States, from those in the US Congress to those at state and local levels. The only individuals not affected by these problems can generally be seen in two groups: Those who don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect their lives, and those who are not possessed by an irrational hatred of a particular president.

The reader should take two things into account at this point. The first is that this problem has been seen before. It is not unique to our current President, nor is it unique to one political party. It has affected folks from every walk of life, from every ethnic background, from every educational level and from every career path. The second thing is that "irrational hatred" is here defined as an emotional state which compels words and deeds that would otherwise violate one's own ethical, moral and professional codes of conduct. Such a state might be an issue for readers of this article, but affected readers likely wouldn't have made it this far, so...

Memoria Venellam *

Was he waving at the person on the phone?

During the Obama administration, many in Congress took issue with then-president Obama. Sometimes it was over serious things, such as his cavalier use of the executive order and national emergency declarations. Other times, it was over excessively petty things, like his use of prompt screens. Of those who were obsessed with petty problems, most were Republican; most lacked the ability to recognize anything good done by the President; and nearly all refused to work with him out of personal spite, as opposed to genuine principle.

At the time, many of the Democrats in Congress couldn't figure out what the problem was. Many lamented the stubborn refusal to work with Obama on anything. Not only were Republicans refusing to work with the President, they were also refusing to pitch their own solutions. On top of that, they were proposing legislation that directly countered Obama's agenda, and were running time and money wasting investigations and hearings.

Conservative talk show hosts were having a field day with every little thing they could dig up. Born in Kenya. Not an American citizen. Communist. Socialist. Corrupt. Friends with a terrorist. Pastor's a radical. Father's a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein. There's no college record. It went on and on.

Ultra-conservative talk show hosts were having an even bigger conniption fit. There were connections being made every which way but up. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was being used by Iran. He was being used by Syria. He was being used by Libya. He was also reportedly covering up FEMA camps; Big Pharma human testing; gun running; drug smuggling; and the human trafficking of his enemies. They said that he was breaking the Constitution so that it would no longer work; that he was going to do away with elections; and that he was the Antichrist.

Veritas Utrum

Many were cartoonish in their hysteria.

While some of what the pundits and talking heads and alarmist writers were putting out there was accurate, there really wasn't a lot of genuine and factual accounting. He may have been born in Kenya, but he was also legally granted a Hawaiian document of birth. His birth father may have been Muslim, but by most accounts he barely knew the man. His pastor may have said some crazy things from the pulpit, but so have a number of other big name preachers. None of this means that he is not responsible for some of the worst abuses of power our nation has ever seen; it just means that there was a whole lot of petty crud that didn't need a fraction of the attention it received.

There were also the straight-out lies by which even this writer was taken. For instance, one of the earliest pseudo-facts was that Obama was a full-blown Muslim. The deception didn't last long, fortunately; yet the fact that it had managed to capture the attention and energy of intelligent and rational writers such as myself remains a source of consternation. Another lie: Obama was attempting to repeal the Constitution. A few of his executive orders were strung together, along with a few statements from his campaign, which gave the appearance of an all out assault on the supreme law of the land. This one didn't last as long; in fact, it was proven to be a fabrication while researching the story for the sake of an article on this very blog.

So what has brought on this seeming nostalgia?

Nothing New Under The Sun

Well, as the saying goes: "New boss same as the old boss." Or if preferred: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There was also this saying from a young man who grew up in several African countries: "A cheetah may change his spots to stripes, but his heart remains set upon your life."

In the eyes of this author, Obama was and continues to be a scumbag. That personal opinion does not change the fact that he did a few things which were beneficial. It simply means that in the process of weighing what was good and bad about his administration according to subjective judgment, the resulting conclusion puts Obama and most of those people he surrounded himself with firmly in the "scumbag" column. This may be painfully obvious to those who are long-time readers; however what ought to be just as obvious is the fact that not everyone feels this way. Those who are capable of rational thought and logic; and who have the enviable position of accounting for the historical impact of US Presidents; have suggested that apart from his actual election, Obama's notability and historical significance is negligible.

In the same way, President Trump currently sits in the "Meh" category. He's not yet to be cheered, nor mocked. He's done a lot of good for the country, but this has been nullified by his negative speech. He's already written his name in the history books due to five different events which were halfheartedly reported by the mainstream media. At the same time, those events have not all been seen positively, so once more he's "Meh."

Yet as in the days of Obama, so too is it now in the days of Trump. People are losing their minds. There are those who are so consumed by irrational fear and/or hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. There are those who are so stubborn that they have turned their backs on lifelong goals solely because Trump thinks those goals are worthwhile. There are insane accusations being made. There are lies being told. There are charges being filed, hearings being held and investigations being conducted - All of which are wasting time and money. CNN is to Trump what FOX was to Obama, in a manner of speaking.

Basically, we've stepped through the looking glass, Alice- And to fracture more idioms- The grass may be greener on the other side, but it is always full of thorns when we cross the fence. Though the only constant is change, this applies solely to that which is superficial. The heart of humanity, without any form of external influence, remains hopelessly devoid of redeeming qualities; and this explains why the basket still rolls steadily towards Hell... Exempli gratia, Concessus abortus et educationem ordinatur optimum.

* It should be noted that the author is aware of his atrocious grasp of Latin and is using it regardless for the sake of adding a lighthearted touch to an otherwise heavy handed article.

Envy The Dead

2019-03-09T11:47:00.000-07:00

There are some things in this world that are more terrifying than others. For instance, a firecracker exploding at one's feet pales in comparison to an atom bomb doing the same. A windstorm with fifty mile an hour winds is troubling, but a hurricane is far worse. One tornado is bad, but being surrounded by multiple tornadoes is panic inducing to the extreme.

The point is, there are often more important things to concern ourselves with than whatever has got our ire up. This is certainly not always reality, but it is quite often the case. I remember hearing a story about a man who chose to weather a hurricane at home rather than evacuate. At one point in the midst of the storm, there was a break in the clouds and the sun shone through. He was on the phone with his son at the time, and complained that the bright sunlight off of the floodwaters was hurting his eyes. He complained about the sun's light, but was surrounded by devastation. As unbelievable as this story sounds, there have been a lot of accounts where people were more concerned with petty inconvenience than with potential destruction.

I was thinking about this because of late, it seems as though we're seeing a storm of "worse." Yet for some reason, everyone is apparently ignoring it to focus on the "bad." What's even more strange is that the "bad" is often a side-effect of the "worse," yet one is still focused on to the exclusion of the other. Tears For Fears had it right: It is a mad world.

The Plight of the Living

Take for example the illegal immigration issue. It's certainly a hot topic these days, and for good reason. No reasonable and rational citizen will argue that the United States was not founded and created by immigrants. Most will also agree that the conditions from which many of these immigrants are fleeing are deplorable. I think one might also be hard pressed to find a reasonable and rational person disagreeing with the sad state of these people when they arrive at the border. However, focusing solely on the people, the conditions they fled and their state upon arrival ignores a fundamental fact: The United States has a process by which all of these people can enter into the country without fear of Immigration Enforcement.

AOC and other deluded members of Congress seem to believe that the definition of the phrase "fundamental fact" is "kook thought." In reality; something which they seem to be wholly out of touch with; it is a foundational truth. Immigration has been provided for by law in this nation since 1791. While opinion on immigration has fluctuated significantly between 1800 and today, there has always been a path to citizenship for any who wish it. To react to news of immigrant caravans as though there is no structure in place is to live in a world of fantasy. Moreover, it does seem as though many legislators have some form of dementia when they begin speaking about this subject.

The Plight of the Unborn

Another example of ignoring the greater threat for the sake of the minor annoyance is the subject of abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over sixty-one million abortions in the United States. There have been over one and a half billion world wide since 1980, and over eight million performed by Planned Parenthood since 1970. At the time of this writing, there have been over one hundred and seventy-seven thousand abortions this year. A little over seventeen hundred were stated to be due to rape or incest. There are no solid figures for how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother's life, but most hover around the one percent mark since 1973.

In the United States, it was initially taught to society that a fetus was nothing more than a blob of tissue. The rhetoric was changed over time to suggest that a fetus was then a parasitic organism, and now they teach that a fetus is... Well, a fetus. An undeveloped baby. Yet in New York, legislators passed a bill later signed into law by Governor Cuomo that allows abortions to be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Many states are now trying to do the same. The inconvenience is that actions (namely sex) have consequences. The greater threat is that the United States, first by ruling of the Supreme Court and now by legislation, has made murder legal.

"Murder" is defined as the termination of life, and "life" is loosely defined as the ability to function independent of aid. A baby is considered to be a live person in the United States when they can live apart from their mother. Over ninety percent can do this at twenty-six weeks, and seventy percent can do this at twenty-four weeks. Thirty-five percent of babies born at twenty-three weeks can now survive, and this percentage is growing every day with the advancement of medical science. Thus, the termination of a viable fetus is by definition murder. It is not considered to be such by law though, because inconvenience triumphs over reality.

The Plight of Society

We live in a mad world. We decry the genocide of third-world dictators, yet approve of the deaths of sixty-one million innocents, even though both are carried out in the name of convenience. We shed tears over the plight of people wanting to move freely into our nation without being inconvenienced by background checks and other safeguards, but we grow angry when acts of terrorism by foreign nationals inflict death and destruction upon us. We want to prevent our feelings from getting hurt, but have no problem in oppressing entire people groups to accomplish this task.

In short, our society in general wants to have life both ways. We want to have our cake and eat it as well. We want to live life free from consequence; we want to be free from the laws of nature by enacting laws of men. There is only one group of the world's population that has found the way to be free of consequence, and that group is growing by the minute. They are the dead, and no more apt a phrase can be applied to the world today than the words penned by the author of Ecclesiastes:

History Calling

2019-03-06T18:39:00.000-07:00

Art by Andrew James Unlimited

Hello? Hello? Hello!

Hi! Glad to finally connect with you! So I know we never really met in school, but I saw you an awful lot in passing. Never really saw you in the halls, but sometimes I saw you in the classroom and every now and again I saw you in the library.

I guess I should introduce myself. My name's American History, and I guess the reason I wanted to have a chat with you today is really to kind of clear the air.

You know, there have been a lot of things said about me over the years. A lot of people have been really cruel in the way they've dealt with me, and yeah, I could sing songs about the troubles I've gone through. But I thought that instead of making a big scene, I'd just try and have a conversation with you. Like adults.

The first thing I want you to know is that I don't blame you at all. I was already being done wrong by your teachers long before you grew up. You're not the problem; you're the solution. I'll tell you what I mean in a moment.

You should also know that I'm not in nearly as bad of shape as a lot of people have said. Sure, I've seen my share of bad times, but so has everyone. For example, you've been told that I'm a mess and that I need to get clean. Well truth be told, there's very little about me that isn't pretty straight forward. I don't need to be clean, because the things I've seen were not clean.

Oh! No, I'm not talking about being on drugs! Sorry to have given you that impression. I just mean that facts are facts. What happened in the past can't be changed by reinterpretation, retelling or ignorance. No matter how many times someone tries to change the story, the reality of past events stays the same.

I guess I should tell you that I understand how confused you and a lot of your peers are right now. Your parents are good with celebrating national holidays like Columbus Day and Presidents Day, but you're not sure you can because of issues like slavery and human rights. Your parents are concerned with young politicians wanting socialism in the United States, and all you can see is how bad things are getting around you. I understand that things like socialism and open borders and world peace are appealing. In fact, you and your folks probably argue about it from time to time.

I have to be honest with you about this. Socialism has never worked on a national scale. My family can tell you that first hand. Ask Russian, or Polish, or German. They'll all tell you that every time its been tried, something's gone wrong. The people in power then had to figure out how to fix what went wrong, and sooner or later it became war or oppression. That's not to say there aren't some good things socialism tries to do. The United Kingdom has some socialist elements and they work. Public transportation, for instance. But they can support the programs they have put into place, and not simply because the government printed new money. Does that make sense?

World peace would certainly be nice also. I would love it if I never saw another war. But until that happens, open borders don't make sense because there will always be enemies. They don't disappear simply because you decide there shouldn't be war. The same goes for slavery. What happened prior to the American Civil War was horrific, and that war was even worse. But look around. Slavery didn't disappear, it just became less obvious. There are still slaves, right here in the United States. Why isn't that more important than a politician's haircut?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just want you to know that these days, you can't really trust what a lot of people are saying. You really do have to look into things for yourself. Search engines and internet encyclopedias are great, but they can't substitute personal research.

Why?

Well, because when you are the one doing the research for yourself, the opinions you draw are formed organically. They grow and change naturally. When you listen to the news, the anchor tells you a story based upon the network's opinion. Online resources are often written from someone else's point of view also. So when you rely on those and don't do any digging of your own, you don't have an opinion of your own. You become a clone of someone else.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I will admit that when it comes right down to it, I really don't have a lot of tact or diplomacy. I've never really had the ability to be concerned with feelings. I don't understand emotions so I don't really understand why there's more value placed on them than on facts. I'm also more of an introvert so I don't generally reach out to people. I figure if they want to know something, they'll ask.

But I can promise you that I'll always tell you the truth. Just keep digging. Keep asking. I've got nothing to gain by leaning to any direction. That's how you're the solution.

So, anyway. I guess that's all for now. I hope we'll meet again.

What Is The United States Declaration Of Independence?

2019-03-06T15:07:00.000-07:00

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document written in 1776. The writer of the document was Thomas Jefferson. It was written to King George of England. It gave the reasons for why the people in the thirteen colonies wanted independence.

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed by fifty-six people. The oldest person signing it was Benjamin Franklin. The youngest to sign was Edward Rutledge. The largest signature on the document belongs to John Hancock who was acting as president of Congress. It is said that he wanted to make sure that King George could read it without his glasses.

The Five Parts of the Document

The United States Declaration of Independence is taught in five parts.

The first part is called the Introduction. In this part, the full date is given, which was July 4, 1776. It states that all thirteen colonies stood together in the writing and sending of it. It also says that it is their belief that history calls for events like the one they were about to do. They were going to declare freedom. They knew King George would not give them freedom. So they were declaring their own freedom and expecting war as a result.

The second part is called the Preamble. This word simply means introduction. Here it is used as a place to give an outline. The writer outlines what the colonies believed was proper government. They wanted a government that allowed for people to have a say in laws. They wanted people to have a say in taxes. when people don't have the chance to take part in government the colonies believed they had a right to declare war on the government. This is called revolution.

The third part is called the Indictment. This is where the writer and colonies with him listed all of the things that King George did wrong. It was a list of bad things King George had demanded. It also tells King George that the colonies tried to talk to him about these bad things. It says that the king didn't listen.

The fourth part is called the Denunciation. This word means that the colonies were accusing people. They accused King George. They also accused the people in England for not helping them. They say in this section that because of these problems they had to go to war.

The fifth part is called the Conclusion. Here the colonies finished their document. They said that because of all the things that England had done, they were choosing to be free of England's government. They said that they no longer saw King George as their ruler. They would rule themselves.

After these parts, the people that the colonies had sent to represent them in Congress signed their names. They wanted King George to see that everyone agreed.

What the Declaration of Independence Means

What the Declaration of Independence means to the United States today is debated. Some say that it is just an old document. They think that the document has no value except as a piece of history. Other people think that it is important to teach. But they don't think that it is important enough to talk about. There are still a lot of people who think that it is important to talk about. They believe that forgetting the document and what it says could lead to people forgetting about what freedom really is. They think that if people forget about what King George did in the past they might allow our government now to get just as bad.

What do you think? Is the Declaration of Independence important today? Why is it important? Why isn't it important?

What Happened

Because of this document the colonies went to war with England. King George sent many soldiers to force the colonies to obey. But the colonies didn't want to obey King George anymore. So they fought against the soldiers that King George sent. This war is called the American Revolutionary War. Many things happened in the war. Bad things were done. Good things were done. Many people died. Many more lived. In the end, the colonies became the United States of America.

But that is another story for a different time.

Assassination Justification

2019-03-03T00:27:00.000-07:00

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

This past Wednesday, I had a revealing debate in a popular restaurant of all places. Two nights before, all but three Democrats in Senate voted to keep debating whether a child born alive after an abortion attempt was worth the same protection that any other child is granted. Because this vote was not necessarily in the news heavily, but being discussed by many anyway, I was naturally asked for my opinion. I say naturally, because this is a place I go to regularly, and many of the staff and frequent patrons know me.

When I was asked my opinion, I simply stated that it was a damn shame that some children are considered to be worth less than others; at least, in the minds of forty-three Democrats and one so-called Independent. I stated that Senators Casey, Jones and Manchin deserved a standing ovation for separating from their party (Democrat) and agreeing that all children should be protected. I also said that I believed that day was perhaps the darkest day this nation has seen since the state of New York passed the "Reproductive Health Care Act" (RHA). That law, contrary to statements by supporters, uses such broad language that a child could potentially be killed without consequence even at the point of birth. Lastly, I added that this seemed like the first step in a larger attempt to decriminalize murder, possibly leading to mandated euthanasia or worse.

The woman I was talking to; and who had asked my opinion on the matter; agreed with me. She said that when New York passed the RHA, she read an article that had a statement she couldn't believe. The writer of that article had said that we could only believe that medical professionals would risk their licensing and careers to perform frivolous abortions if we showed similar distrust of doctors performing other procedures. The conclusion was that anyone who didn't trust a medical professional to do an abortion was simply unreasonable and out of their minds. The woman I was talking to then said that as recently a week before, she had seen another news report of a misbehaving doctor.

As I agreed, a gentleman who is there on occasion decided to interject. This is an account of that discussion.

+++

"The danger of that particular bill was that it could have been used to impede a woman's right to choose," he began. "You, as a man, do not have the right to impose your will upon a woman or her body."

"I'm standing next to a woman who agrees with me," I observed dryly.

"That's beside the point," he responded. "You do not have a voice in this matter, so your opinion is not only unwanted, it is also worthless since it relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy."

"That's interesting," I said, feeling myself getting a little heated, "Considering that you're also a man, yet your opinion is apparently gold."

"I'm just speaking the truth," he said with a shrug. "You're the one with such a high and lofty opinion of yourself." He glanced at his phone briefly and added, "Which, I suppose, is typical for someone supporting President Frump."

Something in my mind snapped at this point. "Okay, so let's go ahead and go on record here. The lady here wanted my opinion, and quite frankly, you've made it very clear that yours is more valuable than mine. You say that the bill could be used to impede a woman's right to choose, right? Do you realize that the language of the bill explicitly sheltered any woman who gave birth after an abortion attempt? Under that law, she could not be charged with anything? How does that impede her right to choice?"

"Oh, it wasn't the law itself," he said with a chuckle. "It was the fact that it penalized doctors and medical personnel who failed to take measures to save any infant that was born alive. Doctors would stop offering abortions and women would once more begin dying from back alley procedures."

"Really? Who's making the slippery slope arguments now? From 1972 to 1979, twenty-four women died from post-abortive hemorrhaging, which is still recognized to this day by the CDC as only the third most frequent cause of death associated with abortion. They rarely talk about the first and second causes, infection and embolism. What they don't mention is that while the overall mortality rate has gone down for women who get abortions since that time, the rates of hemorrhaging and infection have risen." I raised an eyebrow. "Worse still, prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion related deaths were being reported because it was illegal to perform abortions. Now, fewer deaths are being reported, yet it is pretty clear that doesn't mean there are fewer fatalities. In fact, approximately three out of four maternal deaths related to legal abortion aren't even identified. The idea that more women are going to die if abortion is made illegal doesn't stand under the weight of the statistics. Not to mention that we're not even discussing abortion as a whole. We're talking about partial birth and after birth abortion. Murder, in my eyes."

His posture straightened and he seemed more resolute now. "Abortion, whether it is at one day or nine months, is still the prerogative of the woman. It is not your place to say what is and is not allowed, and neither can the damn Republicans."

I leveled my eyes on him, looking for any sign of flinching as I asked, "So you're saying that a woman should be able, even at the point of birth, to decide she does not want a child?"

He didn't pause for a second. "Absolutely."

I wasn't so surprised by his response at this point, but I could tell the lady was. Her eyes widened and her mouth opened just a little. When she didn't say anything, I took the opportunity to challenge his way of thinking.

"Should a man who assaults a pregnant woman be charged with assault and murder if the child dies?"

He didn't bat an eye. "Certainly, if the state law allows for it. That's a different matter entirely."

"Fair enough," I said, appreciating his viewpoint. "But you're saying that if that same woman decides she doesn't want a child after all, even as she's giving birth, the child should die? And, of course, because it's a completely different circumstance, it is not murder. Am I understanding you correctly?"

He nodded. "Yes, and yes."

"Huh." I thought for a moment, then asked, "So by that logic, your mother could choose to terminate your life, and because it's a different circumstance, it's not murder."

He laughed. "Of course that would be murder. Although my mother is saint, and very religious, so she wouldn't even consider it."

The woman I had initially been talking to interjected, "How fortunate for you."

If he picked up on her sarcasm, he gave no sign that he had. "I think so. I rather enjoy my life."

I held up my hand. "I just want to make certain that I have a clear picture of your stance, if I may."

He nodded again. "Certainly."

"Okay," I began, "Let us assume that the woman in this situation is in no danger of losing her life by giving birth, or by carrying a child to term."

"So assumed," he confirmed.

"So this woman gets to her due date, and maybe a few days past it, and goes in to the hospital to have her child. somewhere along the line she panics and decides she can't raise a child. She should be allowed to kill the child without it being defined as murder?"

"Correct."

"If that woman had initially decided to have a third trimester abortion, but it didn't work, and she delivers early as a result, she should still be allowed to authorize the death of that child, without anyone being guilty of murder?"

"Absolutely. It's her right to choose."

"And if the same woman actually gives birth to the child, but has a change of heart before they cut the cord, that child can be killed, and it is not murder?"

"I would use the term 'terminated' in all cases," he corrected me smoothly, "but essentially yes."

"And just so I don't get caught up on any other minor details," I said by way of preface, "You are aware that in the last two cases, the child is now breathing air on his or her own?"

"On it's own, but yes."

"It's own. Terminated. Got it," I said, repeating the terminology for his benefit. "Okay. So basically according to your view, personhood is defined by an individual's choice. Regardless of when that choice takes place. It could be at eighteen days, or it could be eighteen minutes after birth."

He paused for a moment, looked at the ceiling, and then looked back at me. "You could say that, yes."

"So by your logic, the determining factor between undesirable and desirable," I stopped and rephrased, "Rather, the determining factor between priceless and worthless is the choice of a single individual?"

"Correct."

"Wow." I said. "I can see it all so clearly now. That means, that I could decide you are worthless, kill you, and not be charged with murder. I was only making an arbitrary choice, and preventing something worthless from taking away from our planet's valuable resources by termination. Not murder."

He smirked at me. "That's not how it works."

"Right, because I'm not a woman."

He nodded, the smirk still there. "Because you're not my mother."

"Ah, I see." I said. "So if your mother, then, tired of your viewpoint on this issue, she could choose to deem you worthless and terminate your life without being charged with murder."

"No," he said, now finally appearing flustered. "Again, that's not how this works."

"But that's what you said. A woman, even after the point of birth, can choose to terminate her child. I mean, it's either murder, or it isn't. If innocence is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between the death penalty and murder is understandable. But if a mother's choice is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between post-birth or partial-birth abortion and drowning her child doesn't make sense. It must be murder, or it must not be. There is no room for it to go both ways."

The smirk was gone. There was a vein visible in his forehead that I had not noticed before. As he walked away, he said, "You're a closed-minded bigot."

+++

As the woman I had begun the conversation with walked to the register to settle the man's tab, she suggested to me that perhaps if I had gender reassignment my opinion would be valid. I laughed at that, because the thought had not occurred to me. When she returned, she informed me that the man had overheard her comment, and stated that it still wouldn't make a difference, because I would still be biologically a man.

+++

So there you have it. This account is as accurate as I can recall. There may have been some things left out, but I have added nothing.

Killing Children

2019-02-26T16:21:00.000-07:00

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.

Where Is The Outcry Now?

2018-12-08T20:34:00.000-07:00

This will not be a long article. I intend to say what I have to say, and be done with it. Comment however you like, though be aware that I will delete those that do not add to the discussion in any constructive way. Fair warning has been given.

Here are a few scenarios to consider.

Egypt discovers tunnels under its borders and under Cairo around the same time the country comes under attack by targeted missile strikes, mortar fire, and suicide bombers. They discover it to be the work of one specific group, and bring a resolution to the United Nations to denounce the group as radical and terrorist.

China discovers that it also has tunnels under its borders, and under Beijing, around the time that it also comes under similar attack. It is discovered to be the work of the same group as Egypt, and they also move to have the UN declare this group radical and terrorist.

Kuwait also comes under attack by the same group attacking the other two countries, and finds the same form of entry points. They join the call for the UN to condemn the group's actions.

It is documented that this group fires indiscriminately with their mortars, targets intentionally civilian transport with their guided missiles, and intentionally sends suicide bombers into densely populated civilian areas for maximum death counts.

It is also documented that this group launches their missiles from civilian populated areas in its own country. Furthermore, they launch mortars from atop civilian homes, hospitals, orphanages and schools.

All of these actions by this group are designated as war crimes when in a state of war. When not in an officially declared war, these actions are recognized as being acts of terror and crimes against humanity.

Even with the brand new requirement for two-thirds majority adopted by the UN on December 6, 2018, the three countries above would likely see their resolution pass, right?

Of course they would. Anyone with half a brain could look at the group's actions and say "That is not right. That is not acceptable. That is an attack on a sovereign country, and it all amounts to acts of terror."

Now, let us further understand that it is also documented fact that this same group has declared that they wish to set up their own caliphate. They wish to see all Arab countries under their rule, and then subjugate the rest of the world.

In this case, it is natural to assume that since these attacks were carried out against two Arab countries and another recognized world power, that their resolution would receive overwhelming support from other world powers and the Arab world as a whole, right?

Again, no sane person could claim that this could be in any way wrong.

But what happened on December 6, 2018, just twenty minutes after the vote requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any resolution within the United Nations?

The nation of Israel, itself a target of indiscriminate mortar fire, targeted missile attacks, and suicide bombers, failed to see its resolution pass. This resolution would have recognized the group known as Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Hamas. The group that has sent suicide bombers into Israeli marketplaces. The group that has fired mortars into empty fields and crowded city streets alike. The group that has recently acquired guided missiles from an officially unknown source and used them to target transit. The group that has gone on record in the past as denouncing various Arab countries such as Egypt and Kuwait as being too immoral and therefore worthy of being labeled enemies.

That Hamas.

The resolution failed to achieve two thirds majority because every Arab country in the region; each one having been threatened by Hamas in past statements; voted against declaring them a terrorist organization.

It failed to achieve two thirds majority because countries such as China and Russia; two countries who have seen their interests in the region threatened by the group's activities; still refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The resolution failed because every Arab nation in the region has already stated; whether recently or in times past; that they desire to see the only Jewish sovereign state on the planet wiped from the face of the Earth.

The resolution failed because China and Russia, along with several other Communist and Socialist states, have certain interests within the Arabian and African regions. Though this is currently mere conjecture, it is likely that the missiles Hamas now possesses originated from one or both of these countries.

Had Hamas taken these actions against any other Arab state; or against any other world power (barring perhaps the US and the UK); they would have been denounced.

Their actions would have sparked a cry of outrage from the world at large, and certainly from the world's social justice warriors.

Their actions would have placed the group upon a pyre built by public outcry, and lit aflame by the United Nations.

So I ask you...

Where is the outcry now?

Life Or The Party

2018-08-16T03:47:00.002-06:00

There are things in this world that I do not understand. Most of the time, I am fine with this. When I am not fine with this is when a double standard is very obviously in effect. For example, a group supposedly standing for something in slogan that they refuse to stand for in action.

Take for example this latest act of insanity: A "Right To Life" group that will not support a pro-life candidate because he or she is not a member of either major political party. You read that correctly.

The slogan above should, perhaps, read: "Support Pro-Life Candidates (if they are major party members)!"

The current gubernatorial race in Oregon could best be described as a train-wreck for the Sanctity of Life Movement. The candidate the only Right To Life PAC in the state backed, Greg Wooldridge, lost... And miserably, based upon the numbers. Just over sixty-three thousand for the ORTL candidate, and more than one hundred forty-four thousand for the Primary winner, Knute Buehler. The ORTL lost its gamble by more than twenty percent.

I am not knocking the three-time leader of the Blue Angels Squadron, by any means; however it seems to me that the ORTL backed the wrong candidate. Allow me to elaborate. In every state in these United States, there is generally a mistrust of outsiders wishing to take public office. The hopeful could be a living saint, and still the natural-born residents would view them with a high degree of skepticism. It is not Captain Wooldridge's fault really. Trying to win in one's adoptive state is hard enough; trying to win in an adoptive home state that has historically elected a Democrat governor is far worse. Many hopefuls prior to the three-time Boss have found that to be true, and now so has he.

Now that the ORTL gubernatorial hopeful is out of the running; and the current GOP candidate is not pro-life; it seems natural that the PAC would reallocate funds to support the only other pro-life candidate on the ballot. However, this is not the case. Seemingly it has never been the case, and if the ORTL PAC's Political Director David Kilada is to be believed, it never will be.

Why?

Because in Kilada's own words: "Minor parties haven't demonstrated that they are capable of fielding winning candidates." This is taken from an email sent to a loyal reader of this blog, who passed it along in the hopes that we might be able to shed some light on what seems to be (pardon the expression) an abortion of justice and common sense. Elsewhere in the email, asserts that "The amount of resources we would need to carry a minor party candidate through statewide is astronomical. We don't believe in throwing away endorsements." Later on, the Political Director rather curtly adds "Policies have implications. That's why we are careful to follow them. Our policies such as these are how pro-life voters know they can trust our process."

It may be asserted by the PAC that this article is taking statements out of context. Sadly this is not the case. At the end of this article, dear reader, you will find the full text of each email sent to this member of the Renegade family. Read and judge for yourself.

In any case, the stated purpose for the PAC's existence reads in part "[o]ur focus is on electing champions for protecting life from conception to natural death." This Mission Statement comes into question when there does exist a gubernatorial candidate that would champion this cause wholeheartedly: Oregon native and Constitution Party nominee Aaron Auer. It especially comes into question when the idea of them "work[ing] to identify and support pro-life candidates for office..." doesn't seem to line up with their actions.

The logic expressed by the PAC regarding third-party candidates seems to fall to pieces when

considering any number of relevant facts: The fact that Mr. Auer has done all his own campaigning and funding; the fact that on a far smaller and tighter budget than his competitors, he repeatedly brought in at least one percent of the vote, and all in general election.

Aaron Auer is a circuit-riding preacher; he founded the ROAR (Restoring Oregon's Amazing Roots) organization, and regularly participates in events aimed at reminding people of the state's awe-inspiring history. He keeps the account of the Nez Perce tribe and their quest for the Book Of Heaven alive. He fights tirelessly to prevent the Circuit Rider monument from being removed from the State House grounds. He is galvanized, courageous and emboldened to champion righteous causes- And the Sanctity of Life issue is certainly a righteous cause.

In spite of all of this, an examination of the PAC's recommended candidates revealed no mention of the Constitution Party hopeful whatsoever. Why? He did the work to get himself on the ballot. He's putting in the effort to travel and meet people. He's drumming up support for himself by pounding pavement. Yet his name does not appear in the PAC's list of supportable candidates. (See image left)

Kilada maintains that "...endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections by endorsing multiple candidates in races with pro-choice candidates." Yet in an earlier email he notes that "[w]e are focused on the dozens of legislative and local elections that are critical to the pro-life movement." Now wait just a moment, Mr. Kilada - Didn't you say that endorsing multiple candidates throws away elections?

The Political Director of the ORTL PAC also asserted that they "do not have favoritism in terms of parties." Yet a quick search of the names above show something interesting: Vineeta Lower - Republican. David Molina - Republican. Alexander Flores - Republican. Dorothy Merritt - Republican. Jack Zika - Republican. Brian Stout - Republican. Christine Drazan - Republican.

While it could be chalked up to the Democrat Party's inability to put forward a pro-life candidate, it certainly seems strange that there is no "favoritism in terms of parties," and yet the only candidates listed are GOP hopefuls. Additionally, about half of them are running against incumbent Democrats in districts that routinely elect Democrats. What was that about "throw[ing] away elections" and "throwing away endorsements?"

It is a wonder to me that, after seeing all of this malarkey and self-destructive adherence to a faulty policy, the ORTL PAC would invite people interested in running for office to contact them. What would they be told? That they must seek election as a Republican or a Democrat to be supported?

Suppose someone has the good will, support and backing of more voters than the GOP or DNC pro-life front-runner. This would virtually assure that well-liked candidate the electoral win. Would they be denied even an honorary mention simply because they were running under a third party?

As a pro-life family man considering a move to Oregon in the near future, I have been watching the electoral process fairly closely. I've paid attention to who has said what. I've researched the voting records, pet projects and desired goals of incumbents and hopefuls alike.

Nothing- And I repeat, nothing- Prepared me for seeing the sort of shocking lack of vision and foresight displayed by the Oregon Right To Life Political Action Committee. When someone with the title of Political Director can state over and over again that "our PAC policy has been and remains that we do not endorse minor party candidates" and "endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections," there is something wrong.

These are not policy fueled processes that I, as a voter, could trust. To blatantly state that "[w]e are the only pro-life organization that works to support these candidates and it's critical that we get the word our[sic] to pro-life voters about these candidates" and then leave off any pro-life candidate is, in my view, a betrayal of trust. Regardless of policy. Regardless of donation. Regardless of party. A statement that "This is not our official candidate, but he is pro-life also" would be far better than an egregious display of willful ignorance.

Worse than a betrayal of trust, however, is the betrayal of that which the ORTL PAC adamantly claims to stand for:

Now, as promised, I will provide the emails I received. Read them, weigh them, and decide whether this PAC deserves support - Or if the candidate they have so casually thrown away as inconsequential might just be the message that they, and the state of Oregon, need to get loud and clear.

Incidentally, there has been no word if the reader has received anything back from Kilada. I will update this article if there are any new developments.

Email #1

Email #2

Email #3

Email #4

Email #5

News Commentary Break: Lorde, The UN, And Israel

2017-12-24T20:25:00.000-07:00

Bullspit Of Epic Proportions

Truth be told, I like some Lorde songs. I think she's got a unique voice and a very different ear for music. I also can't say that I am upset with her for canceling her show: It's her show, and what she does with her business is her business. It's no skin off my nose if she chooses to respect her Israeli fans, or respect her Palestinian fans, or disrespect most of her fans to please a portion of them. It really is none of my concern.

What is my concern; what does have me ready to unload on someone; is the level of misinformation being spread around. What does have me pissed off is the pure and unadulterated stupidity seen in the United Nations today. What does have me angry is the relative ease with which a whining, vocal few can sway public opinion.

Case in point: Lorde. I don't know the young lady, but I'm guessing she's very busy being a singer and performer. I'm guessing that between performances, publicity appearances, release parties, studio work and interviews, she has precious little time for herself. I'm guessing that much of her quality alone time outside of the public's eye is spent doing things she enjoys- And unless she enjoys researching international politics; the history of Israel and the Palestinian people; the creation, governance and activities of Hamas and Hezbollah; and the recognition policies of the United Nations, she probably doesn't know as much as she should to make a truly informed decision. However, introduce a whining, sniveling, simpering, sob-story toting duo of millennial/hippy hybrids writing a letter full of historical inaccuracies and factually flawed reasoning, and this incredibly influential pop star makes a decision which in turn sways public opinion.

"A Difficult Time"

I'm sure that Palestinians throughout the region were suffering terribly, wondering if she was going to come or not. I can almost guarantee that no Muslim woman would be at the concert anyway; at least, not in any visible way. You see, such Western entertainment is considered to be corrupting to a Muslim; but especially to a woman. To see Lorde on stage showing skin not normally seen in a strict Islamic society could potentially cause women to think they were empowered, valuable or worse, (gasp) even human. If given the chance, I'd like to ask Ms. Abu-Shanab why she does not attempt to teach under Hamas or Hezbollah rule. I'd also like to ask Ms. Sachs why she thinks it's possible that she could return to Israel while still heading up her Deyanu organization.

The simple truth is that Ms. Abu-Shanab would face persecution and possible death under Hamas and Hezbollah for being a woman teaching- Whether she is Muslim or not. Meanwhile, Ms. Sachs would be allowed to continue her involvement with an organization aimed at lambasting Israel for its supposed occupation of Palestinian land while living in Israel because they maintain much the same individual freedoms as the United States. The worst Ms. Sachs might experience are some harsh words from people who don't approve; far easier to deal with than the literal stones which might be thrown at Ms. Abu-Shanab.

The reality is that no Palestinian dwelling in regions around Israel were having a difficult time due to Lorde; nor would they have any additional difficulty if she had chosen to keep her concert. No, the reality is that the difficulties these Palestinians face come directly from their coalition government: Hamas and Hezbollah. These two groups, still listed as international terrorist organizations, are the entities throwing fits about Jerusalem's recognition as Israel's capital. To stay alive and semi-cared for, the people barely surviving under this joke of a government merely repeat the party line.

The Sins Of America

According to dimwitted and well-intentioned people alike, the move by President Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was "shortsighted," "piggish," and "the actions of a Zionist bully," to use just a few of the descriptions I've heard. These individuals seem to forget the requirements for admission into the United Nations, to say nothing of simple history.

President Trump did nothing unusual: He recognized a city as the capital of a country that has had that city as its capital since inception. Would we be claiming issues if the U.S. recognized London as the capital of the United Kingdom, Paris as the capital of France, or Ottawa as the capital of Canada would there be an issue? Of course not. Yet these three countries have the largest Jewish populations in the world apart from Israel and the United States.

The issue is not that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The issue is that Israel even exists, and I absolutely dare anyone to try proving me wrong on that statement. The sins of America in relation to Israel are many: We did not step into World War II soon enough; we did not treat them properly under many presidential administrations since their sovereign national identity was established; and we have not done enough to help their neighbors rid themselves of Hamas and Hezbollah. With the absence of these organizations, and a genuine democratic republic in place, the Palestinian peoples would actually be capable of speaking for themselves.

The Treason Of The United Nations

In order to be admitted to the United Nations, an application must first receive a minimum of nine out of fifteen votes from the Security Council. Then it must receive a two-thirds majority vote from the General Assembly. In 1949, the nation of Israel was accepted into the United Nations with a better than minimal vote.

In the speeches accompanying their admission, the Jewish people were hailed for their contributions to humanity. Phrases such as "advancement of progressive thought" and "Useful member of the family of nations" were used in these final discussions and statements. El Salvadore stated that it had watched the process "with the warmest desire to promote its admission." These are just some of the glowing terms used during these final speeches.

Naturally, there were those opposed. It should come as no surprise that these were almost exclusively Arab, and almost entirely Muslim. It should come as no surprise that the anti-Israel initiative began even as they were admitted to the United Nations. Iraq called Israel's admission "another nail in the coffin of the United Nations." Egypt implied that admitting Israel would bring "everlasting shame and humiliation" to the United Nations. Syria accused the United Nations, stating they had "rewarded violence with praise." Nevertheless, Israel was admitted.

Ironically, the United Nations is now doing exactly that: Rewarding violence with praise and condoning terrorism with a smirk and a shadowy hand-off. The Arab states surrounding the nation of Israel have, from 1949, continually attempted to wipe Israel from the map. This is incontrovertible fact, and it cannot be excused.

So this brings us to the latest treason against Israel perpetrated by the United Nations; this in addition to them funneling money to Hamas and Hezbollah in spite of the fact that they are recognized terrorist organizations; this in addition to supplying the coalition government formed by these two organizations with finances to bring legal action against Israel- This in spite of said coalition government not being a member state.

This is the latest:

A Notable Event

2017-12-23T14:56:00.000-07:00

A classic Christmas scene - But how accurate is this?

Tradition Reigns

We know the scene: Mary and Joseph staring down at a serenely sleeping baby Jesus, surrounded by animals, shepherds, angels and three kings - And all in a stable, because some innkeeper was a jerk. Joseph has a staff, of course, because he's like Gandalf facing the balrog better known as Herod: "You shall not pass!" Jesus lay sleeping soundly, because being God, he would never fuss. Mary is radiant, of course, showing no signs of just having given birth. All the animals would naturally be facing their Creator, and the three kings would stand pondering the newborn wisely.

This is that classic creche scene, isn't it? Even many churches that put on Christmas pageants have all these characters together. Since that's the tradition, why question? If that's how our churches portray it occurring, why doubt? Even many of our favorite Christmas carols reinforce these concepts, for Kringle's sake!

The problem is that very few of these classic scenes are confirmed in Scripture. What's more, the Bible in its entirety actually puts a bit of an unexpected spin on quite a few dearly held assumptions. In these next few articles leading up to Christmas, I'd like to share some of these spins with you all. Nothing contradicts or invalidates the Word of God - But much of what we thought we knew about the Christmas story is about to get shaken up.

Setting The Scene Correctly

Here is a more realistic setting for the Nativity scene.

One of the first things that ought to be understood is that we've been assigning blame to some poor schmuck who likely never existed. There are only two accounts of Jesus' birth in the Bible, and neither mention an innkeeper. Yet for who knows how long, we've been blaming some random proprietor of some ancient hotel, motel or Holly Day Inn for Christ being born in a stable.

As a matter of fact, the original language in Matthew suggests that there wasn't an "Inn" at all. The word in Greek is kataluma, and suggests a set place of rest for travelers. Interestingly, there have been archaeological finds showing such public shelters, often built above a cave. There was no topos, or space, for them in the kataluma, or shelter. Because of this, Joseph took his pregnant wife to the closest protection he could think of: The cave beneath the traveler's shelter which housed the livestock.

Another aspect of this scene? An exhausted Mary. You see, while she had been promised the honor of carrying the Son of God, she had not been promised a painless pregnancy or an easy birth. The classic vision of her kneeling beside her newborn son is likely less than accurate. If she was cradling her son as she lay on her side, or slightly reclined, this would be more realistic.

That being said, it is possible that Mary was simply able to give birth and bounce back almost immediately. It was also extremely unlikely. The swaddling cloths that Jesus was wrapped in were quite possibly meant for Mary in the case of her death. According to historical record, the mortality rate of birthing mothers was high; and Jews could not come into physical contact with the dead. Thus, strips of cloth were carried to enable the safe movement of a body. In this case, Christ was wrapped in such cloths at the beginning and end of his earthly life.

The Baby Jesus

One of the biggest issues I have found with the traditional scene is actually that of the baby Jesus. In carols, in Nativity scenes, and even in some sermons, this newborn child is depicted as being some serene sleeper. A no tears infant of incredible understanding and comprehension. There's just one problem with this: That's not the picture given us by Scripture.

In Matthew 1:25, we're only told that Mary gave birth to Jesus before Joseph consummated their marriage. In Luke 2:7. we're given a little more detail: She gave birth to a Son, wrapped him is swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger. In verse 16 of the same chapter, we're told that the shepherds came to find Mary, Joseph and the baby laying in the manger.

Notice that nowhere does it tell us about the behavior of the infant Jesus. However, we are told that "He learned obedience through the things He suffered." (Hebrews 5:8) We see that he behaved just like any other headstrong 12 year old, deciding what he thought to do was more important than following his parents home from the Temple. (Luke 2:41-52) Thus, he was as much human as God. This suggests to me that Jesus probably cried in the manger; that Mary and Joseph probably changed their equivalent of diapers; that they had their share of sleepless nights as a family; and that the boy Jesus probably had to practice measuring and cutting in Joseph's shop before he got it right.

Bottom Line

There's nothing heretical or apostate in looking at likely realities where the Bible and Scripture do not inform, so long as these do not contradict the Word of God. Pointing out, for instance, the fact that Jesus was probably just like every other newborn is not a violation of Scripture- Perhaps traditions, but when tradition and Scripture collide, tradition must bow to the Bible.

Pointing out the historical unlikelihood of them trying to stay at an inn may seem to contradict Scripture at first. However, when the original Koine Greek is examined, it's easy to see how the two words topos and katalumas have been misinterpreted in our modern day. Even King James Only advocates have little to complain about when it comes to this, as in the early 1600's, such shelters were still present here and there throughout Europe and Middle Eastern countries. It is simply the definition of words, and thus our understanding of those words, which has changed.

Stay tuned for the next examination.

Beyond The Bend

2017-12-21T02:51:00.002-07:00

Have you ever gone for a walk on an unfamiliar road? Have you ever encountered a sharp turn in that road that you couldn't see past? Ever stared at that ninety degree angle and found yourself wanting to just turn around?

There are times we don't want to take that turn. Maybe we're just out for a simple walk. Maybe we're driving through a strange neighborhood. Maybe we're on that road call Life and this turn has suddenly appeared before us. We all have moments where we hesitate. Why?

These turns are frightening. These turns are scary. We can't see around them so we don't know what's waiting for us. That makes us think of all the "what ifs" that could be waiting for us. Those possibilities grow and get stacked up until we can't see anything else.

The "what ifs" are what cause fear. They are fair-weather friends in the best of times. Most often they are our enemies. They wait for an opportunity to stab us in the back. An opportunity like a blind turn in front of us. There they attack. There they bring fear.

Fear has been defined as False Evidence Appearing Real. That's what the "what ifs" really are. We don't know that those terrible "what ifs" aren't there. At the same time we don't know that they are. False Evidence. Fake news. Nothing but day dreams gone bad.

This is one reason the Apostle Paul said to "take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5) Christ is God. (Jn. 10:30-33) God is Love. (1 Jn. 4:8) Perfect Love drives out fear. (1 Jn. 4:18)

There is nothing to fear when we have perfect love. Humans really don't have perfect love. We are able to have perfect love when we have Jesus Christ. When we have Him in our lives we need to make every thought obey Him. When every thought obeys Him there can be no fear.

I'm sharing this because I'm practicing. I'm still working at this. I'm not a master yet. I have noticed that it works. When I remember to make my thoughts obey Christ, the fears disappear. So do the "what-ifs." When the "what-ifs" are gone, I am able to make it beyond the bend.

So can you.

[This is the second installment in a new series. The first is HERE.]

The Edge Of Loss

2017-12-17T21:01:00.000-07:00

I sit here typing away on a laptop, currently warm and sheltered from the cold outside. It may seem that all is well, but reality is a... Uh... Well, let's say that reality is not nice. Reality is a harsh wind in the face of a soft hope.

I could say a great deal about reality right now. I could rant and rail, which would be fitting for this blog I guess. I could complain, but who'd actually read the whole article at that point? No. Though I have one hundred and one things to say about reality, I'll stay quiet.

The truth is that reality has two edges. With one edge it cuts us deeply. With the other, it clears a path for us to walk. God's Word is indeed a lamp unto our feet, but I have noticed that God uses reality to make sure we're awake.

Wasteland Of Desperation

Courtesy of Freely Photos - Credit: Mohammad Alizade

As I sit here typing, I have a few tabs open in my browser. One is a job search. Yes, I have been placing applications. I average about five a day. I also call the companies where I've applied if I don't hear from them within seven days.

The rule I live by when seeking work is simple: "My future in God's hands, my resume in everyone else's." This is a great rule. It has worked well in the past. It is not working right now. In fact, I haven't worked steadily in over two years. That means that the rule hasn't worked for me in over two years.

I have worked some odd jobs here and there. Most have amounted to day labor. Due to God being good, my family has never wanted for a roof, food, warmth or transportation. Until now. Until this moment. This night when I stare total loss in the face and wonder what comes next.

Death Of The Faithful

My wife and I have had a faithful car for as long as we have been married, some four years now. It was her car before I married her. It has been a good car to us and our baby.

Last night, I lost reverse. Then I began losing speed. Our car sits outside tonight on life support. She is able to start. She is able to run. She is unable to keep going for much longer though. She is certainly unsafe for the daughter that so loves car rides. She is too wounded to be trusted with my wife.

Tomorrow, I will likely take her on one final drive. We will ride slowly with her hazard lights blinking away. I may or may not be crying. I know how silly that sounds.

Courtesy Free Images - Credit: Brian Tan

I will think of all the fond memories we have made with her. The night my wife and I made our way to the hospital. The day we returned with our daughter. The long road trip to New England to visit my family. Visits, long talks, earnest prayers, rehearsed lines for opening night... All within this faithful car.

Our destination will be the local Junk Car Medics. They will put money in my hands, and I will walk away. She will have made one final sacrifice for her family. I will feel like Judas.

Sour Hopes And Sick Hearts

My family lives in a studio apartment now. Two adults and one infant in an apartment the size of a modest motel room. We wait for red tape to be cleared elsewhere. At some point, my phone will ring. A friendly voice on the other end will tell me that my family and I can finally move. That we are finally fully funded.

Yet we have waited and waited. The phone does not ring. Our savings account drains and still the phone does not ring. I write articles to sell. I write more than I sell. Still the phone does not ring.

I forgot, I'm afraid. I forgot what it felt like to have hopes and dreams go sour. I forgot what it's like to have my heart become uncomfortable. Then spiral from discomfort to discouraged. From discouraged to agonized. From agonized, to sick.

Hopes held too closely ferment. When they are not kept properly, they grow old. They begin to wrinkle, peel and stink. At the height of their souring, they begin leaking. The toxin of the once promising hope begins to poison the heart. Naturally the heart grows ill.

Bait And Switch

Yesterday I was finally able to get a job. Sort of. It's on a day to day basis. Weather tends to affect the schedule. Temperature is an issue also. If things get too cold there can be no work. Yet income is income. I cannot afford to be proud.

I spoke with my future employer yesterday afternoon. I was on a hands-free device while driving. I was able to tell him that I had transportation. Then last night she began to die. Now we have to sell her for scrap.

Will I still have a job? I was supposed to start on Tuesday. I don't know what the day after tomorrow will bring. I hope to be working. I just have to get there.

The Meeting Place

Many paths meet on a dark desert night. That night is now. Will I be working on Tuesday? Will they buy our car tomorrow? Will disaster be avoided for another week? Or will rent go unpaid? Will we be sent over the edge of loss?

I simply don't know. I know we are here in spite of all I've done. I know we still cling to hope. I know that dreams never really die. They mutate perhaps. Sometimes they become zombies and return to bite us. They never really die.

The biggest thing I have to remember is that more than problems meet here. This is the hard place where God's power crashes into the rock of troubles. When all is said and done, I know we'll be all right. I'm just convinced.

We'll be together in the meeting place. No more rock. No more hard place. No more blind curve in the road of life. We'll be beyond this trouble. There will be others to be sure. Each time, I know that we'll be there again.

At the meeting place on the edge of loss.

[The second installment in what is becoming a series can be found HERE.]

This Is Not The End

2016-11-11T13:42:00.001-07:00

One of the most contentious and vicious presidential election years is now officially behind us.

The President-Elect is Donald J. Trump.

The House of Representatives is under Republican Control.

The U.S. Senate is under Republican Control.

Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton gave a very nice concession speech.

Current President Barack Obama stated that he has accepted the results.

So naturally, it's all over, right?

Sadly, for many people, this is not the end of the season of fear they walked into when Trump became the Republican nominee. These folks are focused upon the rhetoric that came out of Trump's campaign, and the horrible things stated in Clinton's campaign advertisements. They are looking at Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, and his alleged affiliation with various groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They are replaying in their minds the things stated about Muslims, homosexuals, lesbians, Hispanics, and certain women during the campaign.

For these people, this is the end of the world- Or their world, at least.

Friends, I would like to bring to you today some very good news: This Is Not The End.

President-Elect Donald Trump

Yes, Donald Trump ran a nasty, spiteful and inflammatory campaign. He managed to anger nearly every societal and cultural group in the nation. He exhibited some of the worst behavior ever seen in a presidential candidate in the history of the nation.

I will say that at least he didn't challenge his opponent to a duel as happened a couple times in the late 1700's, but that's not really saying anything, is it?

Nevertheless, let us be encouraged by the fact that our government is structured in such a way as to prevent Trump from being able to enact or implement much of what he said he wanted to do. Moreover, those things he spoke of which would be beneficial for the U.S. economy, tax code, and more- These things will be examined and scrutinized. The checks and balances of this country are in place for just this sort of event, and as such, I look forward with a great deal of hope.

More on why this is a little later.

Hillary Clinton

While Clinton began her concession speech saying that the results were "...painful, and will be for a long time," she also went on to say that the citizens of the United States "...owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." She went on to encourage her supporters to remain involved with the political process, stating "...let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear. Making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top, protecting our country and protecting our planet. And breaking down all the barriers that hold any American back from achieving their dreams. ...our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to build that better, stronger, fairer America we seek. "

Clinton ran a campaign that was, in many respects, as dirty and nasty as Trump's. If you are a regular reader, you know that I supported neither major candidate; I always vote my conscience, and I always will. With that being said, much of what Clinton had to say Wednesday morning was excellent; it was encouraging; and though she did talk about the pain of losing, she also spoke a great deal about hope.

Once more, I find myself agreeing with Clinton; moreover, I applaud her intestinal fortitude and her refusal to sink to the lows that supporters from both sides have seen and surpassed.

President Barack Obama

"I had a chance to talk to President-elect Trump last night -- about 3:30 in the morning, I think it was -- to congratulate him on winning the election. And I had a chance to invite him to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about making sure that there is a successful transition between our presidencies.

"Now, it is no secret that the President-elect and I have some pretty significant differences. But remember, eight years ago, President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush’s team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running. And one thing you realize quickly in this job is that the presidency, and the vice presidency, is bigger than any of us.

"So I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush’s team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect -- because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.

"...I'm confident that this incredible journey that we're on as Americans will go on. And I am looking forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that the next President is successful in that. I have said before, I think of this job as being a relay runner -- you take the baton, you run your best race, and hopefully, by the time you hand it off you're a little further ahead, you've made a little progress. And I can say that we've done that, and I want to make sure that handoff is well-executed, because ultimately we're all on the same team."

Genuinely speaking, this is the proudest I have ever been of our current president. All that I can say is well done, Mr. President. Well said, and well done.

The U.S. Senate

The Senate of the United States had 36 seats open to change this past election cycle, and though largely eclipsed by the presidential election, the race for Senate was just as contentious in some places. In the end, the Republican party maintained control of the Senate, which was a joy for some, and a painful defeat for others.

Republican control of the Senate has had many people concerned over the direction the nation could turn, given the election of Donald Trump. With one party holding control of Senate and the White House, there has been speculation that the United States is about to undergo tremendous change; and potentially not the sort that they'd want to see. Verbalized fears of border walls, banned homosexuality, criminalized abortion, and deported Muslims have been the most common that I have overheard.

However, there is reason for hope, my friends. I'll get into why before too much longer, but believe me when I say that things are not as bleak as they may appear.

The House of Representatives

Not many networks talked about this much, and mainly due to the fact that they were too busy covering the antics of the presidential candidates. Nevertheless, all 435 seats in the House were open to change in this past election. Just as with the Senate race, the competition between Representative hopefuls was quite a spectacle in its own right.

When the dust cleared, the Democrats had won 192 seats in the House. The Republicans took 239 seats, holding onto their majority control. Again, this has caused a great deal of fear in the hearts and minds of many people, for the same reasons as the Republican controlled Senate raises.

What is important to note in the wake of this Republican "sweep" (as some have called it), is that many of these Representatives have a track record. Why is that important, you may ask; it is important for the same reasons as the track record of Senators and Presidential candidates: The track record tells the story that people and various media sources will try to hide.

Where's The Good News?

If you are a Democrat, a Liberal, or like me are simply fed up with both major parties, you may be asking exactly where the good news in all of this resides. Where is it? More importantly: What is it?

To begin with we live in the United States of America, which is perhaps the best place that an election result such as this one could possibly happen. I'm not promoting some hyper-exceptionalism or ultra-nationalistic pride when I write this. What I am saying is that our government is set up in such a way as to almost perfectly handle such events. Look at this diagram with me.

According to some folks I have spoken with, their children's schools are not teaching the structure of the United States government. (I have heard from some teachers that this is not taught until high school, but I'm sure it depends upon districts and school systems.) So whether you never learned this; or if you are like a few friends of mine who actually requested I include this section as a refresher; here is a simplified layout of how our government's branches work.

This is called the system of checks and balances, and this is what keeps everyone playing by the rules, more or less. A President does have the ability to introduce legislation to be made law; but Congress must approve that legislation both in the House and in the Senate. Congress can introduce and pass legislation with the intent of making it law, but the President must first sign it before it actually becomes law. The court system, specifically the Supreme Court, can declare laws unconstitutional; and contrary to popular opinion, they can do so without a case coming before them. A President can utilize Executive Orders, (and these are among the "presidential acts" in the diagram), but the Supreme Court can render them invalid by declaring them unconstitutional.

So let's look at a few of the scenarios that people are most concerned about under a Trump administration:

Trump Introduces Legislation To Build A Wall - Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agree that this country has an immigration issue. Many also agree that part of that issue is illegal immigration, or people crossing into the United States without proper documentation. Much of that illegal immigration does come from Mexico, though there are illegal immigrants in the United States from all over the world. However, most lawmakers do not support the building of a wall along the Mexican-U.S. border. As President, Trump could introduce legislation providing for the building of a wall, but based upon the track records of those in Congress, it would never become law; they would instead debate, argue and haggle for some other method of immigration control, and we would likely see the issue die on the House floor, never making it to Senate.

Trump Issues An Executive Order Banning Homosexuality - Due to the nature of his campaign, many people are concerned about the issue of homosexuality and the free practice thereof. (For the sake of this illustration, I am addressing homosexual practices only, and will explain why shortly.) Let us say that as President, Trump issues an Executive Order that bans homosexuality. It would certainly create a public outcry, but it would have no effect- Why? Because the Supreme Court has already ruled in a number of cases involving homosexuality, homosexual practices, and the rights of homosexual men and women. As a result, the moment that the Order is issued, the Supreme Court would immediately declare it unconstitutional and render it void. This also applies to any attempt by Trump to criminalize abortion.

Trump Demands Congress Deport All Muslims - Let us imagine that out of all the vitriol that came from the Trump campaign, the expressed desire to deport Muslims actually materializes in the form of a President Trump ordering Congress to find a way to do just that. At this point, Congress will almost unanimously laugh at him. The orders of a President are not the same as those from a King or Emperor: In short, they do not have to be followed in the same manner. Could Congress work something out that Trump would sign into law, such as a national registry, a public identifier or a special tax? They most certainly could, but in that unlikely event the Supreme Court would step in declaring the law unconstitutional.

As we look forward in time to the administration of Donald J. Trump, I urge everyone to remember something important: The President of the United States has very little absolute power. The only absolute power that a President does have is his/her ability to pardon, and to a lesser extent, initiate foreign policy.

President Obama was able to accomplish what he did in his eight years because he had like-minded people in control of Congress; he didn't do it on his own. His Executive Orders crossed lines of propriety in many respects, but the large majority of them stopped just shy of snubbing the Constitution of the United States.

Trump does have a Republican controlled Congress, but he does not have a Congress controlled by like-minded people. Unless he proves himself a much more capable leader than he presented during his run, it unlikely that he will ever get such a Congress, let alone a second term.

If you still feel the need to take refuge in Canada, that is entirely your decision; I understand that there are a couple people I'm acquainted with who are planning that move now. I do not condone such action, as I personally see it as a type of cowardice; however, neither will I condemn it in such broad strokes as to suggest that everyone holds my view. If your last act as a U.S. citizen is to run, then my response is "May your legs not grow weary, may your heart never faint, and may you find what you seek." To further clarify: If I were to run, I would consider myself a coward, for that is my personal standard; if others choose to run, I wish them the best.

But make no mistake: This is not the end.

NOTE: If you are a Christian, the following section is especially important.

How Christians Should Respond

As believers in Christ, we know the Bible tells us that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of peace, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). We are told that perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18). We know that we are also told not to worry about what is to come (Luke 12:25-31), and that God is ultimately in control (Psalm 27:1; Romans 8:38-39; John 16:33). Finally, by way of reassurance, we are told that God exerts authority over our rulers (Proverbs 21:1).

We are also told that we are to be lights in a dark world (Matthew 5:14-16). Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another (Romans 12:18) and not to be a stumbling block to our brethren (1 Corinthians 8:9) or to anyone else (1 Corinthians 10:32)! We are also told to share in another's joy and in their sorrow (Romans 12:15), not to treat anyone as beneath us (Romans 12:16), and not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17).

Bearing all of these things in mind; taking into account that we as followers of Christ are to be His reflections on earth; factoring in that we who believe are often the only Gospel that some people will ever read; I believe it is our solemn and sacred duty to look at this time in history not as a burden, but as a time to shoulder the burdens of others. We ought not look upon these coming four years with fear, but with hope in our God, who alone can change and turn the hearts of men. We should not gloat over the despair and despondency of those who mourn, but seek to comfort, encourage and uplift them.

Doing anything less than this is to misrepresent Christ and place ourselves as a stumbling block before a world seeking Him- Though they know not what they seek.

In conclusion, Christians: We must behave and respond as Christ. He exemplified Isaiah 61:1, and promoted justice as Isaiah 1:17 said- He stood for the oppressed, championed the widow and provided for the orphan (even if symbolically). Christ then told His disciples, and by extension all who believe: "These things and more shall you do." (John 14:12) He did not say that we would do things He did not do and not do things He did; or more clearly stated, "some of these things and less." We are to follow His example- Period.

So let's start today by bringing hope to those in despair.

The Blood of Christ

2016-10-13T16:02:00.000-06:00

There was an article going around social media about six years ago that detailed the seven places Christ bled, and just recently this was used as the basis for an excellent message in my church. It got me thinking about the sacrifice that Christ made, certainly. It also got me thinking about how many unbelievers refuse to accept the account; some going so far as to dispute the very existence of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, it also inspired thoughts of how many Christians simply do not take the time to consider the magnitude of His suffering and death, choosing instead to focus solely upon His resurrection. I understand that some may find the suffering of our Savior to be an unpleasant topic to discuss, much less meditate upon; a great many of us would prefer to forget our own suffering, let alone dwell upon that of another! However, it is vital for believers today to not only recognize how and where Christ bled, suffered and died; but also to understand the full scope and magnitude of why.

Start with the basics of His suffering and the tools of His execution, but do so with the understanding that the Jewish people are as guilty of killing Him as you and I; more importantly, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that it was certain Jewish leaders who sought His death, and not the nation as a whole. Finally, His execution was carried out by the Romans, thus certain tall tales about His suffering and crucifixion must be necessarily laid aside.

A Quick Note: There are those who claim that Christ was only given 39 lashes; indeed, the article referenced in the beginning of this article utilizes this thought. However, this is more a traditional teaching beginning within the Roman Catholic Church, and is not supported by history, nor by Scripture. It should be noted that the Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans for the singular reason that they could not execute Him themselves, and as such abandoned Him to Roman executory custom.

The Suffering of Christ

Jesus' suffering initially began within the Garden of Gethsemane, where He was under such immense emotional and mental strain that the capillaries beneath His skin ruptured into His pores, causing His blood to mix with His sweat. This extreme response to intense stress is still seen today, and is known as Hematidrosis. There are variations of the name for this phenomena, but they are documented and very real.

His indirect suffering, defined as suffering incurred at the hands of others without violent contact, began after His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Throughout the course of the night, Jesus was forcefully marched more than two and a half miles from trial location to trial location. This was done without sleep and very little nourishment, so far as we are aware.

The direct suffering He endured at the hands of others via violent means began after His first hearing. This took place before the political Sanhedrin, where He was found guilty of blasphemy. After the finding, He was blindfolded and punched about the face by the temple guard. His second trial was before the religious Sanhedrin, and though He was not subjected to violence, He was forced to march.

After His trial before Pilate, Jesus was subjected to scourging. This was usually carried out by two soldiers, called lictors, using short whips of braided leather, with bone fragments and small iron balls incorporated into the weapon. The area that was flogged was the back, buttocks and legs of the condemned; the recipient of the punishment was usually chained to a post by his wrists, causing him to hang painfully when the strength was beaten from him. The purpose of this flogging was to bring the subject to the point of collapse or death, without causing either. The end result of this beating were multiple, quivering ribbons of flesh and torn muscular tissue bleeding profusely. This was no less true in the case of Christ, and we do know from studying the Greek that this particular scourging was harsh even by Roman standards. Some have suggested that the whips were slightly longer, allowing the lashes to reach around to the front of Christ, possibly even causing damage to the face, torso and genitals.

A Quick Note: There are those who claim that Christ was only given 39 lashes; indeed, the article referenced in the beginning of this article utilizes this thought. However, this is more a traditional teaching beginning within the Roman Catholic Church, and is not supported by history, nor by Scripture. It should be noted that the Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans for the singular reason that they could not execute Him themselves, and as such abandoned Him to Roman executory custom.

After the scourging, the soldiers mocked Jesus. Perhaps they were acting out of nationalistic pride, given that the charges against Him were that He claimed to be king. Perhaps they were simply amused by having a Jew handed over to be executed by them, and chose to make an example. Or perhaps they were simply barbarous brutes intent on inflicting as much pain and agony as they possibly could. Regardless of their intent, we do know that after inflicting a particularly harsh flogging, they chose to beat Him further.

A crown of thorns was woven for Him to wear. It is not known for certain which plant supplied the materials for the crown of thorns, though tradition suggests it was a plant known as Euphorbia milii. While this is contested, the plant is decorative, pliable, and the thorns are quite sharp and fairly long. These facts suggest a plausibility to the tale, given the Roman's fondness for decorative plants. What we do know is that this crown of thorns was woven and placed upon Christ's head and a robe was draped across His back. After mocking Him, the soldiers proceeded to beat Him with the "scepter" they had given Him and then ripped the robe from Him. Apart from the beating He took from the stick, violently removing the robe would have reopened the wounds He received during His flogging, resulting in further blood loss.

A Quick Note: This is not the first recorded Roman execution that utilized methods not generally prescribed by their usual execution practice. For instance, one historian recorded the crucifixion of a criminal coated in honey to attract insects; another recorded a condemned man made to walk to the place of execution in sandals made of rope and bone fragments.

It is recorded in the Gospels that Christ was made to walk up the hill to Golgotha while carrying His cross. This has translated to a tradition wherein Christ carries a full cross; though Jesus was certainly strong enough to have done this in peak condition, it is not supported by historical fact. The cross that Christ and every other condemned man carried was actually the cross beam itself, as the vertical beams were semi-permanent fixtures on the hills and roads around the Roman Empire. This exertion alone would have certainly caused Him to collapse along the way.

Once atop Golgotha, The beam was laid on the ground and Christ stretched across it. The first arm would have been stretched without much effort to a specific point, and a spike measuring five to seven inches was driven through His wrist. The point of insertion was very specific, and every Roman soldier was taught this: The point on the wrist was chosen because of its strength, and also because of the pain that it caused due to the severing of a specific nerve. This pain would have been immediate, causing Christ to impulsively recoil towards the wound. At this time, a leather thong would have been tied around His other wrist, and the soldiers would have forcibly wrenched that wrist to the point of the beam where it too was impaled.

A Quick Note: Here again we see tradition doing a great disservice. Traditionally Christ was pierced through the hands, and most Christians can name at least one song that speaks about His pierced hands. The disservice is in relating something that is not possible when telling the Gospel story. It is physically impossible for a human to support his weight on a pierced hand; the hand would very literally tear apart. Remember that for Christ's sacrifice to mean anything, He had to give His life as fully man- Thus, something physically impossible in the course of that sacrifice would invalidate the sacrifice. He was pierced through the wrists- Not through the palm of His hand, as tradition so poorly recounts.

Once fastened to the cross beam, Christ would then be hoisted to the notch in the vertical pole. In many such crucifixions, the arms of the condemned were tied to the vertical beam to allow for easier hoisting without risking the condemned dying on the way up of asphyxiation. That may or may not have happened in the case of Christ, though it is likely as we are told that not a single bone was broken: Often during this hoisting process with an untied victim, bones in the arms would break under the stress. However what is certain is that on the way up the vertical beam, the wounds incurred during the scourging were violently and painfully reopened. It is also very likely that due to the weathering of the vertical post, Christ would have also suffered multiple splinters of wood. Small splinters in such damaged skin would certainly be painful, but these were more likely to be long, wide and jagged depending upon the age of the post.

After being suspended, His arms would have been untied, allowing Him to sink fully onto the spikes in His wrists. The soldiers would have immediately taken His feet and raised them slightly, keeping Him from suffocating, while preparing them for the next and final stage of the process. His feet were placed either on a block of wood, or on the post itself, and a spike about seven inches long was driven through the center of his feet; fastening them one atop the other, and both to the cross.

After this final torment at the hands of the soldiers, the death process began in earnest. In order to breath, Christ had to place all of His weight onto the spikes in His wrists and the one in His feet to draw Himself up to inhale. He would have had to do the same thing to exhale. In this way, blood loss and exhaustion gradually stole life from the condemned man. Christ also spoke, adding further stress and strain to His body. It was during this process that Christ would have, as the Gospels tell us, "Breathed His last."

Peter counsels us to be prepared to give a reason or defense for the hope that we have, and this applies not just to those who are openly hostile to the Gospel, but those who have questions about what they believe. More importantly, answering the questions of fellow believers; regardless of their maturity in the faith; is a vital and integral part of discipleship, which is one of the basic points of the Great Commission.

Why Was A Sacrifice Necessary?

The need for a sacrifice has long been questioned, not only by skeptical unbelievers, but also by Christians. While many followers of Christ will time and again proclaim their faith, it is natural for questions to arise; especially for those new to the faith. Sadly, much of the Christian Church responds to this sort of question with answers falling into one of two categories: The "Just Have Faith" category, or the "Never Question God" category.

These two categories of questions do more to weaken the foundation of faith than strengthen it, and I believe that it is well past time to straighten this out. Peter counsels us to be prepared to give a reason or defense for the hope that we have, and this applies not just to those who are openly hostile to the Gospel, but those who have questions about what they believe. More importantly, answering the questions of fellow believers; regardless of their maturity in the faith; is a vital and integral part of discipleship, which is one of the basic points of the Great Commission. Thus, my challenge to the Christian Church as a whole is this: Whenever our response to a question falls in one of the two categories mentioned above, let us interrupt ourselves and find the actual answer to the question; very often this sort of response-by-rote is an indication of a deficiency in our own study, and we owe it to ourselves and to the one who asked the question to faithfully search out the correct answer.

To answer why a sacrifice was necessary, we must first understand something of the nature of God Himself. To start, He is completely righteous, holy and good. To illustrate the magnitude of this point, the statement that "God is Love" is not stating that God embodies love as we know it, but rather that He is the definition of love; our understanding is flawed unless we know love as defined by God. Likewise, righteousness, holiness and goodness are defined by God; our understanding of these attributes are inherently flawed unless He is our standard.

Now we must understand sin's nature. Sin is literally rebellion against God; not so much His laws, but rather His nature. To illustrate this point, think of a genuinely good police officer. His purpose is to protect and to serve, and if we politely comply with his request ("stop and identify yourself, please") we are very likely to be treated fairly, respectfully, and mercifully. However, if we choose to run off, we are likely to be on the wrong end of a baton, taser or worse; the degree of our immediate pain is commensurate with how much rebellion we exhibit.

Now, using our two illustrations, God is very much like that genuinely good police officer. The difference is found in the fact that though even the most good cop is still a flawed human being; and thus able to look past some minor infraction they themselves may have committed; God is the absolute standard of holiness, and thus unable to overlook any act of rebellion without a commensurate punishment being levied. As a result, sin acts as a barrier between mankind and God. Since God is life itself, sin is death. Because sin is death, it requires death; in many ways, blood is the currency of sin.

sin acts as a barrier between mankind and God. Since God is life itself, sin is death. Because sin is death, it requires death; in many ways, blood is the currency of sin.

However, God is also the absolute standard of mercy. In keeping with His nature, He provided laws by which mankind could measure its sin. God is also the absolute standard of grace, and in keeping with this, provided a means of atonement: Literally, of paying for one's sin without the need to shed one's own blood.

Throughout the Old Testament, this was accomplished through the sacrifice of animals. Animals are not guilty of rebellion against God, and thus they have no sin. However, they are still under the effects of the curse brought into the world by sin, and as such are imperfect sacrifices; imperfect in part because they are under the curse of sin, and also because sin did not enter in through the animal kingdom, but through mankind. Because of this, a sacrifice did not cover all sin; it only covered the sin for which it was offered. The only sacrifice that would cover all sin had to come from a perfect human being- But as we've already stated, all of mankind is tainted by sin; by rebellion against the very nature of God.

Once again, it is the absolute grace and mercy of God that come into play. Obviously, no human born of a human union could make the necessary atonement, so God orchestrated one of the greatest miracles since the creation of the World: Christ was born, fully God, yet fully man. The perfect human to make the ultimate sacrifice for all sin.

This is why a sacrifice was necessary.

The Magnitude Of Christ's Sacrifice

You will remember that we mentioned that the method of covering sin through sacrifice is called atonement. This was such an integral part of the plan for the removal of sin from this world that it played a major role in the life of the nation of Israel throughout the Old Testament; indeed, sacrifices were made prior to Israel's existence as a nation.

It was with the nation of Israel, however, that the atonement practice was codified. While sacrifices were offered for individual sin whenever necessary, there was a single day set aside every year for a sacrifice on behalf of the nation as a whole; a sacrifice covering all twelve tribes of Israel. This day is known today as Yom Kippur, but in the Old Testament it was known as the Day of Atonement.

Allow me to walk you through this for the sake of illustrating just how truly amazing, awe-inspiring and incredible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

On the Day of Atonement, one bull, two rams and two goats were sacrificed. The amount of blood spilled for this specific sacrifice averages to about twelve gallons; that's approximately one gallon for each of the twelve tribes. Please note that that is twelve gallons for the sins of one nation over the course of a single year.

Now, this sacrifice was presented from the time it was commanded to what is known as the "Silent Period" (about 400 years before the birth of Jesus Christ), which was a span of approximately 898 years. This means that for a single nation's yearly sins, roughly 10,776 gallons of blood was spilled. For one nation, and for a temporary covering.

Now jump with me to the present.

It has been estimated that from the time of Creation, approximately 108 billion people have lived on the planet Earth. That is from the time of Creation to the present, and growing; but for our purposes, we'll stick with the estimated figure.

In Luke 17:3-4, Christ tells His disciples that if a brother wrongs them seven times in a single day, and seven times asks forgiveness, they are to forgive that brother seven times. So as an unbelievably conservative estimate, we'll say that the average person commits seven sins a day. Only seven sins. With me so far?

So if the average person commits a mere seven sins a day, that means (not including leap years) that a person commits 2,555 sins in a year; and over an average lifespan of seventy-five years, commits 191,625 sins in a lifetime. Bear in mind as you look at these numbers that we are using conservative estimates for the number of sins committed in a single day, and a shorter lifespan than are being offered for the modern man- And these numbers are for one, single person.

When Christ was crucified, He was bled of nearly all of His blood. This statement is based upon forensic examinations of the historical accounts of Roman crucifixion practices and the accounts from the Gospels. (One such examination can be found here.) Should this hold true, this means that approximately one and a half gallons of blood was shed by Christ.

This means that one and a half gallons of blood shed by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, covered an estimated 78 quintillion sins and growing. For illustration purposes, that is 78,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus sins since the beginning of time- And growing.

That should boggle the mind.

It gets even more amazing, however. We are told in the Gospels; by the lives and deaths of Christ's disciples; and by the testimony of countless others; that Christ rose from the dead. If even one sin could not be covered by His sacrifice; if even one sin was the one too many; Christ would never have risen, because the sacrifice would not have been perfect.

Yet Christ rose.

What Does All Of This Mean? (Or: TL;DR)

What this means, friends, is that not one single reader of this blog is without hope. It means that not a single non-reader of this blog is hopelessly lost. It means that the blood of Christ is pure enough to cover all sins.

It means that though our daily sins might hit double or triple digits, Christ can and will save us from sin's requirement of death. It means that the mercy and grace of God extends to all people, at any time, everywhere, until the end of time.

It means that our God is not only the absolute standard of holy, righteous, and good; but He is also the absolute standard of love, mercy and grace.

This means that one and a half gallons of blood shed by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, covered an estimated 78 quintillion sins and growing. For illustration purposes, that is 78,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus sins since the beginning of time- And growing.

It means that God's love, mercy and grace extends so far as to envelop all of Creation; that through Christ's sacrifice even nature itself will be redeemed.

It means that because God is the absolute standard of all that is good, we have no reason to fear anything that is wrong, evil or just bad.

It means, my friends, that God loved and cared for you enough to "make a way where there was no way," and provide a bridge for you to cross over the divide into His loving arms.

The easy part is accepting the sacrifice that Christ made for us; as simple as praying "God, I recognize that I am a sinner, and that I fall short of perfection. I repent of my sins, and ask you to forgive me of my sins through the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. I ask You to be the Lord of my life, and help me to live a life that reaches for You. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

The hard part, my friends, is living that life- But once again the grace and mercy of God is there, because just as He made a way to cross the divide, He is the absolute standard of faithfulness: He will strengthen us to live that life.

One of the most beautiful representations I have come across. All credit to the original artist.

Note: This article has been edited for spelling and grammatical errors; however, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for some errors to have been overlooked. Please feel free to let me know if you find any. Thanks, and God bless!

Considering Erick Erickson's Reconsideration

2016-09-22T19:33:00.000-06:00

AUTHOR'S NOTE: After having published this article, a friend was observant enough to draw my attention to a few issues. I have edited these changes in, but for the sake of being able to see how it may have read prior to those changes; and thus why said changes absolutely had to be made; they will be made in this type. Thanks again to all who have read and responded, and by all means, keep it coming!

Recently a good friend shared an article via social media written by one Erick Erickson. It is a good article, and it is worthwhile reading as I agreed with many of the points and issues he brings up. However, I also found it necessary to take issue with some of what he said.

Below are those which I take issue with and my reasons as for why. I have also included a few of the points I agree with for the sake of balance.

"I believe the founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty." ~ Erick Erickson

Individual liberty IS what the Constitution has laid out; it is NOT what has been lately defined. Individual liberty is the individual being free (reasonably) free of government restriction, invasion and micro-rule. I interject "reasonably" because there is a need for law- Just not on the level that we see today. There is a need for enough stricture to convict criminals and safeguard life and liberty; what we have now is too much stricture, meant to protect wealthy and elite criminals and rob the average citizen of precisely what law is meant to protect.

Mr. Erickson goes on to clarify what he means by this statement, writing the following:

"It was not what individuals could do if government helped them that made this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if government left them alone."

It is strange to me that in an article which begins by examining compromise, the author seems to compromise on the language and tone of the article. Just my personal take on how this section's communication was constructed; you get it free of charge.

What I believe Mr. Erickson may have originally been going for is that the founders of this country recognized government mandated liberty as negative liberty; that is certainly what was going on in the British Empire under King George, and precisely what said king was attempting to accomplish within the American Colonies. I firmly believe in clear communication, but I also believe in factual communication. Even when factual communication requires more writing, it is far better to be accurate than to propagate a false dichotomy, pretense or idea.

"I am under no delusions. With Clinton as President, the church in this country will be in for a difficult time, besieged from the outside. The forces of Mordor will be fully on the march." ~Erick Erickson

First, let me just award 100 points to Mr. Erickson for the Lord of the Rings reference. Well done sir, and a terrific analogy. I do not disagree with this statement, but I do believe that it does not go far enough. The problem with this statement is that Mr. Erickson seems to believe that the church would only be besieged from without, yet due to Ms. Clinton's self-affiliation with the Methodist Church, there is grave danger of Christianity being besieged from within.

On August 8, 2016, Snopes published a fact checking article debunking a rumor that Ms. Clinton stated Christians must deny their faith in a speech to the Women in the World Summit in New York City. Yet, though Snopes was correct in debunking this as a direct quote, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton did in fact suggest that traditional Christian values, morals and ethical codes of conduct must be changed to fit the world today. The pertinent quote is below, and I have taken pains not to emphasize or leave out any aspect of this statement:

"Yes, we've nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we've increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we've cut the mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.
"All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.
"As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the twenty-first century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States." ~Hillary Clinton

Please note that though the forum of this speech implied global context, she finishes this quote by saying "and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States." Note also what she believes must be done to ensure the closure of gender gaps, the end of domestic violence, mortality rates and proper reproductive health care: "Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Snopes and other political fact checking sites can dismiss this as not being a direct attack on Christianity because from an outside viewpoint, it is not such an attack. From an outsider's vantage point, this is an observation on the state of women's rights and what must be done to achieve equality. Furthermore, liberals of all stripes can argue that this is not an attack because their worldview would have them believe that Jesus Himself would be at the forefront of this movement; indeed, I have heard liberal Christians make this very argument.

However, conservative Christians view this as an attack because of the very sections of the quote I point out: The call for cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases to change "not just in far away countries but... in the United States." Liberals and fact checking sites do not understand how and why this constitutes an attack, but those of us who recognize that the Scripture does not change to fit societal demands also recognize this as a call to delegitimize the Bible itself. This, readers, is the very definition of an attack on genuine Christianity.

Now why would I bring up the Methodist Church as being something of note when examining Ms. Clinton's impact upon Christianity?

During her time as First Lady, Ms. Clinton attended Foundry United Methodist Church, a body which in their own words rejects aspects of the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline: Specifically when it comes to views on homosexuality. The Methodist Church she is currently listed as being a congregant with is also reported as being "liberal, forward-moving and freethinking." I will add a caveat here: As that church's website is nothing more than a blank page as of this writing, I cannot verify the statement- Take with a grain of salt.

The church in which she spent much of her adult life in Arkansas would also be described as liberal; for example, it supports interfaith meetings claiming "we are more alike than different." Finally, the church in which she spent much of her earlier life also embraces homosexuality in opposition to the UMC's Book of Discipline.

Finally, in an address to the United Methodist Women's Assembly in Louisville, Kentucky, Ms. Clinton stated that her love of the UMC is due in part to its promotion of "social gospel." So what is this "social gospel?" Social gospel in a traditional sense was a movement to awaken the Church to the plight of the destitute, the widows and orphans and others to whom the Lord Jesus showed deference and kindness. Today, the original meaning of the phrase has been co-opted to include gay rights, reproductive rights, and other such things that the Bible specifically speaks to as sin, iniquity and abomination. It is this form of social gospel that Ms. Clinton supports, evidenced by her own actions, deeds and stated agenda. (You can read more about social gospel here.)

This is why I believe that Mr. Erickson is remiss in his assessment of Ms. Clinton's total impact upon the Christian Church within the United States.

"...I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Further, she should be in jail." ~Erick Erickson

I heartily agree with this statement, and would reference anyone who wishes to argue the point to simply look at every documented instance of her lies, misrepresentations, and outright attempts at deception. They are many, they are evident, and they are very much accessible to anyone with the ability to access Google.

I urge everyone to keep this one, vital fact in mind regardless of their faith: Ms. Clinton is a pathological liar, and voting for her is very much an ethical crime for all but the most ethically and morally corrupt.

"A Clinton Administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump Administration will see the church poisoned from within. ...I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David and all of them repenting of their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump who has three times said he never had to ask for forgiveness and only recently said his advance of the church, if he is elected, might be the only thing that gets him into Heaven." ~Erick Erickson (emphasis E.E.)

I understand where Mr. Erickson is coming from on this point. It is a terrible choice being offered those who do not feel that a third party candidate has any chance to attain the White House. In fact, those who do vote third party are likely to do so in full knowledge that if either of the two major candidates succeed, they will be blamed by family and friends. This is not an enviable position for any of us to be in, nor is it one that any of us would willing choose if we felt that we did indeed have a choice.

With this being said, it is a flawed example that is being used here in my estimation; both for and against. While Mr. Erickson does an excellent job of showing why such arguments for Mr. Trump are flawed, he fails to see why his argument using the same examples is equally invalid.

Mr. Erickson seems to forget that while these men did indeed seek forgiveness and repent, they continued sinning. While I am not suggesting that he intended to suggest that the examples were perfect upon seeking forgiveness, I find it frustrating that so many, not just Mr. Erickson, turn to such biblical examples as to why or why we should not support a specific candidate.

Abraham was the father of a nation, and yet his sins continued until the day he died. Sampson was a judge of Israel, yet his sins not only caused his downfall but also brought on his death; the consequences of his sin were felt even as the pillars toppled, in spite of his repentance. David was a king of Israel, and yet his sins so stained his entire life that God refused to allow him to build the temple.

I would remind Mr. Erickson, and all who would utilize such examples, that we do not live in a Theocracy, as did Israel during the time of the Judges. We do not live in a Monarchy, as Israel was during David. We live in a nation originally conceived as a Democratic Republic; a nation wherein the popular vote elected officials, while the Constitution ruled the land.
It is not in error that Mr. Erickson later states:

"And, in truth, I... have concluded we are already past the point of redemption... The seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized past that never existed in a future that is not theirs, but God’s, to shape." ~Erick Erickson

I have stated this many times, and I will continue to make this statement: This nation only came into existence through the concerted efforts of Christians, Deists, and Atheists who worked in unison to birth a nation wherein freedoms unseen in much of the world existed without the government's approval. Today, we live in a nation wherein the government is slowly removing those freedoms; so it was in the early 1800's, when the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, of their concerns regarding religious freedom and the agendas of those within the government he now led.
Jefferson, a man who denied the deity of Christ; the possibility of divine power on display through the Holy Spirit; and stated that he viewed much of the Bible as little more than folklore; also reassured the DBA and history shows that he worked to ensure religious freedom in his presidency. Indeed, it was during his tenure that many Supreme Court decisions were made which are still referenced today. Many of the protections that local churches enjoy today are the direct result of Jefferson and his peers; yet he was a man of sin, of vile wickedness, and of questionable moral and ethical character.

In short, I do not agree that Mr. Trump is poisoning the Church from within based upon the examples given by Mr. Erickson, though his observations do serve as a warning to all Christians to keep their eyes upon the Lord. These same arguments were made for and against President Obama; for and against Bill Clinton; for and against George W. Bush; and on back. They are arguments that are old, tired and worn out, simply given new life for yet another election cycle. I am not suggesting apathy, by any means; rather I am simply pointing out fact. To reiterate, I believe that the points which Mr. Erickson brings up are worthy warnings to the Church.

So, my question then is why people believe that the whole of the choice becomes this: Do we vote for a candidate that will uphold the law of the land and seek to rein back the federal government's encroachment? Or do we vote for a candidate that will expand the government's reach, strengthen its grip, and further reduce the sum total of freedoms?

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Erickson when he writes:

"Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man who conquered death is a terrible thing to see. ...They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling." ~Erick Erickson

With that agreement being voiced, I wish to point out to him and all who agree with him: If this statement is true, neither candidate poses a threat to the Church. If you, dear reader, hold this statement to be true, then you have no reason to fear either candidate. I personally hold this statement to be true and thus fear no candidate; instead, all I attempt to do in my writing is to shine a light on the practical effects of each candidate's agenda.

"Scripture tells me (and you) that believers should have nothing to do with any person who holds himself out as a Christian and is unrepentant." ~Erick Erickson

It Scripture does tell us that we are to shun an unrepentant believer (2 Thessalonians 3:6) and 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 tells us to avoid the company of one named a brother. This last passage also tells us that we are not to operate the same way with those outside of the Church, because God judges them Himself. So if Scripture tells us this, as Mr. Erickson correctly states, then how are some people still supporting Mr. Trump while also claiming Christianity?

They do so in much the same way that others claiming to be Christian support Ms. Clinton: They find loopholes. In the case of Ms. Clinton, I can find no justifiable loophole. In the case of Mr. Trump, I can find only one justifiable; and even that is a stretch. Yet this loophole is one which I have heard referenced time and again. (Allow me to reiterate for clarity: I do not support the idea of loopholes. This is an argument which I have heard many times before, and in which I find an understandable plausibility for Christians who support Mr. Trump. However, I do not subscribe to the notion.)

The basic premise of the "Trump Loophole" is that the context of this passage from 1 Corinthians is for those who have been upstanding members of the Body of Christ who have fallen into unrepentant iniquity. If Mr. Trump had been such a person, then Mr. Erickson would have a valid point; yet if the "Trump Loophole" is accurate, then Mr. Erickson has invalidated his own argument by previously suggesting that Mr. Trump has never been such a person.

One might ask at this point if I am arguing for or against Mr. Trump; I am doing neither, as I do not believe him to be any better or worse for this country and the Church than his opponent. Their impact upon both would simply take different forms.

"All Christendom should be ashamed we are putting our needs in this temporary place ahead of saving a soul bound for eternity." ~Erick Erickson

This is perhaps the most accurate statement ever made for this election cycle, and yet it is applied in the strangest manner: It is directed as supporters of but one candidate, when supporters of both are as worthy of this criticism.

"God did not tell the Jews to throw open the gates of Jerusalemn (sic) for Nebuchadnezzar. God did that himself." ~Erick Erickson

Yes he did, Mr. Erickson. It's found in Jeremiah 38:17, and before anyone says that God did not specifically state that Jerusalem should open its gates, first one must know what surrender at that time entailed. A rather brief time of research will reveal that in order to surrender, King Zedekiah would first need to send a messenger, then open the gates of the city, receive the Babylonian envoy, and hand over his crown before the people. So yes, God did in fact tell them to open the gates to Nebuchadnezzar.

I am not saying this to pick at the man, but as Mr. Erickson has stated, "This is the inerrant word of God..." If one makes a statement based upon the Word of God, then it must be accurate. (Some have suggested that this is nothing more than a distraction and a low-blow; comments from two different sources. I do not believe it is. I believe that an article calling out misrepresentation of Christianity and the Word of God should in no way misrepresent the Bible itself- That is why I correct the Jerusalem argument. If I were simply being petty I would have gleefully pointed out another mistake; which I did not do then, and will not do now.)

The final word I have on this matter is well said by Mr. Erickson, and I believe it is a fitting end to this article. Bearing in mind that I believe all Christians must do as the Holy Spirit leads:

"If God wants Trump in the White House, he does not need my vote or a violation of my conscience to get Trump there."

As always, I welcome your thoughts, comments and questions. Feel free to share this across social media also. God bless!

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
Some have requested that I distill my opinion for easier consumption. They pointed out that when they initially read this, they were coming off of a double shift and coming out of a three day bout with insomnia, respectively. So for the sake of tired minds and bodies everywhere, it all seems to boil down to this for me personally.

Mr.Trump is not a Christian, no more than is President Obama. Thus, in my view he cannot be held to the same standards. With that being said, everything said in Mr. Erickson's article for why Mr. Trump should not be supported actually applies more aptly to Ms. Clinton; I am not saying that because I dislike her, but because she is a professing Christian; has attended a local body of believers her entire life; and supports these individual churches financially. She should not be supported for the reasons in this article; Mr. Trump should not be supported for the simple fact that he is a textbook functional sociopath.

For me personally, it truly is a moral and ethical issue; it seems that my reasons and logic are simply different from those of others. Hillary Clinton is a "No Vote" because of every reason in Mr. Erickson's article. Mr. Trump is a "No Vote" because he embodies everything the Lord hates. Trampling the poor and the widow, despising the orphan- Just a few examples of this.

So what is the choice? Many states allow a write-in, and I personally may utilize that option for my preferred candidate. Others have third-party candidates on ballot; perhaps I will place a vote for one of these. Regardless of what I personally will do, I urge all who read this to vote- Simply do so in such a way that does not violate conscience or the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 2

2016-09-14T15:34:00.000-06:00

In continuing with the contrast of pastoral leadership, allow me to quickly recap the inspiration for these posts and the first three points I looked at in part one of this series. If you would like to read the first part, you can do so here.

I recently received a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. While I agree with each point, I also saw a need to point out why they do not apply across the board. Painting with a broad brush is useful when seeking to point out a problem, but having done this many times I understand also that doing so can cause unintended repercussions. Knowing the author of this list would certainly not intend to cause division within a local body headed by a genuine servant-leader under the direction of the Lord, I am in this series seeking to list each point, give examples, and show exceptions to what are fast becoming generally true observations within the Western Church.

The points already mentioned are as follows:

1. Power Tends to Corrupt.

2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.

Now continuing from the list...

4. Horizontal fellowship trumps butts in the pews and facing forward to our “King” Pastor.

The struggle for spiritual relevance and significance is usually not a people problem but a system problem. The answers aren't always going to be found in and from existing human leadership – but those who actually can hear the whispers of the Holy Spirit. Even the smallest child who can speak – [and] has the potential of speaking the words of the Holy Spirit. If only the 'leaders' are speaking during the fellowship time – it is guaranteed that MOST of what the Holy Spirit was saying during that time is missed. The answer is to create a space of fellowship for the Holy Spirit to speak through whatever means He sees fit!

I have been present in local bodies wherein a child spoke words of great encouragement and also of great conviction. The idea of a child speaking may seem foreign to some, but I harken back to the words of the Apostle Paul when writing to Timothy: "Let no one look down on you because of your age." There should certainly be something in place to a child from running wild through service, but much of that discipline ought to be instilled at home through the attention of loving and godly parents.
I personally see nothing wrong in requiring a child to speak first to their parent(s) before being allowed to speak so that the adult in authority over them may discern the accuracy of what the child believes to be from the Lord. However, we should not be so demanding as to reprimand a child for speaking in the moment if that word is indeed prompted by the Holy Spirit. A reprimand is in order if their speech is not in line with the Word of God, but in this way they are being taught in the assembly what the voice of the Lord sounds like, as opposed to their own minds creating something they believe to be profound.

In much the same way, any adult ought to be able to speak up when the Holy Spirit prompts such speech. No pastor is ever justified in shushing an adult if the word they give is backed by Scripture and prompted by the Holy Spirit. However, a good pastor will also take time after the service to take aside an adult who was in error and reprimand them privately, in humility and love. Anything else is a violation of the pastoral role, unless the word spoken was so grave in its error that correction must be given immediately.
An example of this last statement: There was a time when a woman in my church spoke up, stating matter-of-factly that the End Times, the final Antichrist, and the tribulation, could all be staved off or avoided entirely if the Body of Christ joined in prayer against it. Due to the gravity of the statement, correction was needed immediately; yet even in correcting the error of what had been spoken, those who held the woman accountable did so with love and humility. In this instance, it was clear that they did not wish to embarrass or shame her, but rather show why the statement was in error. This is immediate correction of a false statement done right.

So how can one know if one's church is quenching the Holy Spirit, and thus dead in many respects?

If one's church would be disrupted by a single "amen" during the preaching of the word, it may be dead.

If one's leadership refuses to acknowledge and pray for a need if it disrupts the order of service, one's church may be dead.

If one can set one's watch by where one is in service, one's church may be dead.

The pattern herein should be clear at this time.

5. We need humble spiritual leaders/elders, not power hungry rulers/CEO Senior Pastors.

Do I think the role of pastor is not needed? No. I think it is a gift to the Body – but it is not a dictatorial/authoritative model role –but one as a fellow sheep who always points you to the true Shepherd/Jesus, and always is looking out for your best interests and looks to give His love to you on every occasion. Think of it as not a 'leadership' role but as a personal assistant who is there to make sure you have everything you need. That perspective is HIGHLY different that how it is currently viewed and used. Think Jesus washing his disciple's feet. Actually Paul lists 4/5 gifting roles in the Body that are there TO SERVE, not to rule. The actual scriptural role of a 'pastor'/shepherd is greatly different than what we see in the American Church currently. ...Leadership by example will always be healthier than leading by authoritarian rule. The former allows for the blossoming of the human spirit under freedom. The latter blocks the flourishing of the human spirit under rule of tyranny. Real leaders don’t need followers. They don’t even need power. They lead by prestigious example and slip out of the strangleholds of power like a snake shedding its skin.

Humility is the callsign of a genuine leader of any sort, but is especially important for those within the pastoral office. As is mentioned in the above quote, Christ modeled this in stark contrast to the stereotypical pastor of today by washing the feet of His disciples.

There are genuine servant-leaders out there. They often go unseen because it is not the limelight they seek, but rather the Light of the World shining into whatever life they are able to impact. I am blessed to say that I have personally known a few of these men and women, and they are truly led by the Holy Spirit. (To those who were just now horrified that I would include women as I am speaking about pastoral leadership: That is another topic for another day.)

The fact of the matter is that leading from the "authoritarian role" as stated above is generally a poor model to pattern pastoral leadership after; not only because Christ did not do so, but also because we can see the ill effects of this kind of leadership all around us. Corporations fail, federal governments grow corrupt, and organizations of all kinds implode due to placing a great deal of the steering power (authority) in a single individual. "A true leader is one who leads by example," is a quote that most have heard at least once in their lives, and it is based upon Scripture. So if that sort of leadership is based upon Scripture, then what sort of defense can pastors that lead by intimidation, fear, or authority offer?

If one's church demands absolute and blind adherence to those in authority, it may be unbiblical.

If one's pastors demand the flock take their word in place of God's Word, it is unbiblical.

If one's church leadership is appointed by popularity and not by qualification, it may be unbiblical.

6. Bestowing the role of a Senior CEO Pastor leads to apathetic pew sitters and goats.

“The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.”

~Stanley Milgram
A community leading itself tends to be a proactive community. A community commanded by a leader atop a hierarchy tends to be an apathetic, politically and spiritually myopic, and civically inert / salt-lost-its-usefulness community. So it goes with the “Senior CEO Pastor” tossing dictates down an ill-conceived chain of command. We have an entire American Church playing the victim, caught-up in a viciously codependent chain of obedience.

Contrary to popular opinion, the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. Hate most often comes from love, whether genuine or twisted, and is directed at whatever is perceived as harmful to the object of that love. This is why God hates sin; why the Psalmist as able to say that he "hates with a holy hatred"; and why we can honestly say that there are things we hate. If one is allergic to gluten, for instance, it may not be uncommon to hear one give voice to their hatred of it; it is to be expected, as gluten for that person causes harm.

Apathy, in contrast, is bred through accepted, learned or forced codependence upon an individual or group of individuals. The example often used in political circles is the current condition of the United States, wherein a large percentage of people are entirely apathetic in the face of the coming election; they have grown so due to their codependence upon the federal government, and so long as it continues to give them what they believe they need, nothing really matters. The politicians meanwhile are dependent upon the citizens for their position and income, and thus the chain of apathetic codependence is forged.
It is much the same in a poorly operating church: The people grow dependent upon their leader for spiritual guidance and direction, while the leadership are dependent upon the people for their continued authority, and in many cases, their income. None of those within the flock are interested in stepping forward as a leader, or as a servant; and the leadership have no interest in being a follower or of losing their (oftentimes) laborless income.

The image used for this section is exceptionally appropriate, as the quote on the left comes from a meme created using the transcript of a large and well-known church; led by a larger-than-life and well-known pastor; who misquoted Joel 2:25. Those within the flock seemingly accepted it as Gospel, and no one in the entire auditorium (at least, no one caught on camera) were looking at their Bibles: They were too busy looking at the celebrity pastor. Someone from that service created a meme from it, they were so moved; and yet, their apathy is on display for all their posterity. For as long as the recordings of this sermon exist, this terrible misquote will continue to lead astray those looking to this specific man for guidance. On the right is the actual text of Joel 2:25, and the egregious error of the pastor in question can be seen in full detail; yet so too can the pitiful and genuinely frightening apathy of his flock.

If no one in one's church opens a Bible at any time during service, one's church may be apathetic.

If the pastor does not quote Scripture accurately, or paraphrase properly, one's church may be apathetic.

If one simply doesn't care, just as no other member of one's church cares, one's church is apathetic.

7. A Senior CEO American Pastor role just isn't scriptural in NT theology.

Paul sets up an elder requirements for Timothy and Titus to follow, not a top-down Pastoral executive structure for the setting up of 'churches' or fellowships. The fellowships were community based and meeting from house-to-house. Sure there were evangelists, prophets, and apostles that would come through the towns and cities and speak/teach and fellowship with the groups. And as we read Paul's epistles and John's and Peter's we can get an idea of the style of each of them. They were all different – as we all are. But those apostles and other gifts to the Body came through to serve and equip NOT to be served.

Herein is the crux of the matter, though it may at first be a bit confusing.

A properly running church has a top-down structure only when one lays it out on paper. This is, in some ways, the result of the servant-leadership of the church operating as they should; but also because human nature requires an authority structure of some kind, even if it is solely for the purpose of rebellion. Thus, in a properly functioning church wherein the servant-leaders are regularly seen meeting the needs of the church body, they would be considered the highest point of that church on paper.
In actual practice, however, it looks much different. The pastor as a servant-leader does not guide by authority but rather by example. The elders, deacons, and any assistant pastors do the same in such a church, while the rest of the body benefits from their ministry. In turn, the individual members of the body are instructed, encouraged and strengthened to take on servant-leadership positions of their own; and in this way, the church grows.

In my own church, it is not uncommon for our pastoral leadership to tap a member of the congregation to give a message; share a devotion; help to lead worship; or a dozen other things usually expected to be done by the leadership of the church. A foreign concept in the eyes of many mega-churches today, yet very biblical and sound. By doing this, the pastors are fostering, encouraging and challenging the congregation to grow and move into the calling that God has placed upon their individual lives.

In truth, all other forms of leadership in a church are very much new age in their approach; while I understand the need for structure and leadership, this fact remains incontrovertible. Another term for this sort of structure is Nicolaitan, and in Revelation 2:6 and 15 Jesus Christ tells the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna that this is something He hates. The Body of Christ is not intended to be housed in a single building to which believers drive an hour to attend service; it is meant to be a living organism that spreads across the globe.

If one must get approval from one's pastor before opening a Bible study in one's home, one's church may be Nicolaitan.

If one must get approval from one's leadership to attend service at another church, one's church is Nicolaitan.

If one must get permission to speak the Gospel outside the four walls, one's church is Nicolaitan, and to reiterate, hated by God.

This concludes this series. As always, please feel free to share across social media, and comment below. May God bless you abundantly as you seek to do His will and continue in obedience to His Word.

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 1

2016-09-12T16:38:00.000-06:00

Recently I was sent a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. As I read, I found myself in an unusual position: One in which I agreed wholeheartedly with each point and argument made, but was also able to see why they could not be applied across the board.

As amazing or fantastical as it may sound, there actually are pastors out there that have never taken a cent from the church they lead; who have never used their "power" for the purposes of manipulation; and who genuinely perform their roles as an honest-to-God servant-leader. I know this because I have been under the leadership of at least two of these pastors, and my life is so much the better for it. As a direct result of these people, I am able to say that I know what true leadership within the Body of Christ is, because I was able to see it exemplified.

However, the points are still very much accurate for the vast majority of hyper-publicized churches around the world. This is a sad statement to make, yet it is unfortunately a true statement also. The facts, figures, eyewitness accounts, and very public self-destruction of such churches all support this statement also.

Because of this sad truth, I would like to present to you the seven points I received, and contrast these with genuine servant-leaders that I have known. It is my hope that by seeing the examples and the exceptions, you might come to recognize what sort of leader your local body sits under.

1. Power Tends to Corrupt

From the list:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

- Lord Acton

This is the biggest reason why we do not need a Senior CEO Pastor. The
average human simply cannot handle power. As Abraham Lincoln observed, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Authentic power empowers others. Honest power has no need to cling to power, it releases it instead. It
spreads it out. It expiates it. It empowers others. Besides there truly is only ONE shepherd and His name is Jesus, all the rest of us are His sheep. God's Kingdom is upside down in comparison to the world's institutional model dealing with leadership. Soooo... top down authority models within the Church only create more problems.

Now, there are definitely churches that have this problem. I don't think any of us would have too hard a time of naming off some of the most visible examples, as they are in the news regularly.

However, it should be noted that there are senior pastors out there that do not utilize power with corrupted motives. I will certainly acknowledge that most of those senior pastors who have enjoyed the limelight are often there for a reason, and that not all of those reasons are noteworthy for their Christ-like qualities. With this said, it is often the pastors of small churches, with an outward focus for the community and an inward focus of service, that use the power their office has entrusted to them with humility.

So how can one tell if the pastor of one's church is utilizing power in a corrupt manner?

Well, if that pastor calls names from the pulpit, they may be power corrupt. (There is rarely a proper time for this to happen, and I personally have seen it only once in twenty years.)

If that pastor demands that people refer to them by their office at all times, in and out of church, and will publicly shame those who don't, they may be power corrupt. (It is one thing to teach about respect for a position; it is entirely different to be consumed by it to the point of hurting those that office is meant to protect.)

These are just two signs, but I believe you can see the pattern.

2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

If anyone has ever visited an institutional or denominational church, then chances are they are very much aware of what they were visiting. However, those who attend such churches regularly, and perhaps were a part of it prior to it fitting in this category, may not realize this to be true. Thus, allow me to share from the list once again:

The Institutional / Denominational Church has followed the same structure and power hungry struggle as the 'State' (Government). The Church has become exactly like the State. The state: billions of people elbowing each other through the codependent wretchedness of hierarchical violence. The state: a propped up entity of ominous design, placating its citizens with freedom like a carrot dangling on a stick. ...Alas, the accumulation of the state has led to the erosion of individual freedom, and the Church institution / denomination has taken away the individual's freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit. A bottom-up approach toward reclaiming individual power, and thus individual freedom, should come first. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to what must come second (if there is to be anything left to be free in at all) –a systematic collapse from the top-down. Maybe that's why there are SO many different denominations – people want to be 'free' and thus just started another.

Once more, I can understand and appreciate where the writer is coming from. More and more, I see the writing on the wall for the Western Church, specifically those with an institutional, denominational or combination approach. Allow me to be clear: I have been to institutionalized churches that have run well; that have allowed the Holy Spirit freedom to move; and that have been full of genuinely caring people seeking the will of the Lord. Unfortunately, these have been few. I have also been to denominational churches wherein the denomination's name on the sign simply informed others of what they actually believed; and within the walls of these churches I found some of the most godly, Christ-like people I've ever come across. Again, these have been few in number.

So how can one tell if one's church has reached this point of religious depravity?

If one's church has a "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude, it may be depraved.

If one's church leadership (that is, everyone in leadership, not just the senior pastor) lords their authority over the "peons," it may be depraved.

Again, I believe you can see the pattern.

3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.

The problem with the institutional denominational senior CEO pastoral model is that it propagates blind obedience to --- human control, rather than individual Holy Spirit control. Is there a greater chance of mistakes being made with no 'head' senior pastor's 3 step weekly sermon to follow and just relying on the Holy Spirit? Absolutely yes. But I'd rather have more mistakes with more freedom, than less mistakes because of less freedom. ...Spiritual covering comes from God – not a human leader. Real accountability comes from very close intimate friendships, which our culture, Church, and society admittedly has lost.

Once again, this list is dead on point, and the writer touches on one of my personal hot button issues: Accountability.

In a properly operating church, the pastor is accountable to the flock, just as the flock is accountable to the leadership, and all are accountable to one another. In a poorly operating church, the pastor is above (or beyond) accountability of any kind, yet holds the flock accountable for the smallest infractions. I have been in churches wherein the pastor was carrying on two different affairs with women in the church, and everyone knew about it! Yet, that same pastor had the nerve to hold everyone else accountable for their various addictions- Sexual and otherwise. Because of his brutish approach to his position, everyone within the church had become terrified of confronting an obvious issue.

In the church I attend now, our pastors hold themselves accountable to not only their flock, but also the authority which they have voluntarily placed themselves under: Specifically, our bishop. No, this is not a bishop such as those within the Catholic church have; instead, it is based very much upon the model laid out in Acts and other Pauline letters. Yes, there is a proper method of approaching a pastor on a perceived issue; but there is also a proper method for holding anyone within the church accountable, regardless of their title or position.

As pertains to freedom, a properly operating church allows the Holy Spirit to rule the service. God is a God of order, and thus we may expect a certain order of service. However, when the Lord draws someone to the church for the purpose of ministry to their specific need, the pastor must not quench the Spirit by rigidly adhering to five hymns, four hers and an hour long sermon with four collections. Instead, the pastor ought to allow the Holy Spirit to change the flow of service according to His will, not to the comfort of the pastoral staff.

So how can one tell if one's church is stuck in its ways and refusing to allow the freedom of the Holy Spirit?

If one's service can be expected from Sunday to Sunday regardless of who walks through the doors, one's church may be stuck.

If one sets aside a certain amount of money with a specific bill or check for each collection, one's church may be stuck.

If one finds oneself excited because the annual "Holy Spirit Sunday" is coming ever closer, one's church may be stuck.

Again, the pattern here should be clear for most readers.

This has been the first three of a two part series taken from these seven points. I will post again soon, but until then, I value your feedback. Feel free to share on social media, and pose comments or questions below. I will strive to respond in a timely manner.

Dropping the Act

2016-07-21T12:13:00.000-06:00

...or, The Day the U.S. Government Ended the Facade

This article contains strong language, truth statements,
fact reminders, and uncensored free thought; this is the only
"trigger warning" anyone will get. Reader takes full
responsibility for hurt feelings, wounded pride, umbrage,
mental instability and all other ouchies. Reader agrees NOT
to email complaints, tirades, rants or any other form of
displeasure to the author, as he DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT,
and will likely respond with something that will further
damage warm fuzzy feelings.

I wish that I could say, emphatically and with conviction, that I believe the United States is the best country in the world.

I wish I could state with unequivocating firmness that our form of government is unique and without equal.

I wish that I could sing the praises of a nation that honors truth, justice, and personal responsibility.

I wish that I could stand unmoving in a debate on why this country is great.

I also truly, genuinely, wish that I could say that I trust all police to do their jobs in accordance with the law; believe all politicians will speak with honesty; and watch every political campaign behave with integrity.

If you do not believe this, then you are more cynical than I used to be.

Before Barrack "I Hate You All" Obama.

Before the Benghazi "Didn't Have To Happen" Slaughter.

Before Bernie "Socialist Is A Socialist" Sanders.

Before Hillary Clinton was let off the hook live on national television.

It may be hard to believe, but there was a time in this country when politicians were taken to task for their indiscretions, rather than being idolized for inappropriate actions within the Oval Office. There was a time when the words that politicians spoke were held against their own history. There was a time when a politician's actions against the laws of the land meant public disgrace, criminal proceedings, and certain prison time; the only question being whether that politician would get half a sentence, or the maximum allowed by law.

Sadly, this can no longer be said; and I pity the parents whose children watched a grown woman laugh off her treacherous and criminal behavior. "...But why do I have to be grounded? Hillary Clinton gets away with everything!" As ludicrous as that sounds, I can hear it echoing in politically savvy homes.

There are those who have stated that the FBI Director did what he could to preserve democracy in this country. If they had recommended she be charged, then Trump would have been the de facto winner before there was ever a vote, or so this theory states. I say bullshit. Mr. FBI did exactly what the Obama regime and HRC both wanted him to do: Become the object of hatred and spite for millions in the United States while they walk free.

If anyone thinks for a single iota of time that people were fooled into thinking she did nothing wrong, my response would immediately be "what sort of people?"

I'm sure those sheeple too whipped into subservience to think for themselves believe that. I'm also just as certain that there is the regular idiot who has convinced him or herself that it's true, simply because they want it to be. Of course, there are also those who are generally too stupid to know when they're being taken for a ride; those too foolish to recognize manipulation; those too spaced out to know reality from fantasy; those insufferably arrogant libtards who will be voting with their party lines as quickly as they were snorting lines in the 60s and 70s; and the goosestepping militant feminist that actually thinks that "voting with their vagina" is a sound approach.

Fortunately, all of this has been too much for some sheeple and idiots, and these have begun to develop their own thought patterns. Some space cadets have returned to earth with the announcement, and there are feminists who recognize the sheer cretinism behind a move to vote based upon genitalia. Sadly, stupidity can only be fixed once, and it's generally illegal... Though I'll have to check with the FBI to see if that can be gotten away with also.

I fully expect an uptick of crime and general lawlessness if Benghazi Clinton is elected. Why? Well if the leader of the once "greatest-nation-on-earth" can get away with treason, sabotage, racketeering, insider trading, fraud, embezzlement, slander, perjury, and possibly even murder- Why shouldn't everyone? Moreover, those who up until that point had been law abiding citizens may just begin utilizing civil disobedience, and ultimately resort to more extreme methods in the face of being led by a traitor and a criminal.

I also fully expect to once more hear talk of secession. It would remain at just talk, because with Killary in office, military actions on our own soil would be damn near certainty. Not that she would even need to use the military due to her own private army of ATF, EPA, DHS and IRS agents- Don't be misled, they are now armed to the teeth and possess battlefield grade body armor -Which she could send to simply shut down a State from within. However, I see military being used if a State tried to opt out of the Union, mainly because her little stormtroopers will be too busy terrorizing everyone else who disagrees with her (And we are legion.)

We're being led by a group of individuals who have aged physically but who have never matured enough to behave as adults. We're being led by people who have degrees in many different fields but who cannot even begin to define common sense. The long and short of it is that we're being led by a group of retards- And if you don't like my using that word, perhaps look up the actual definition before attempting to give me shit.

Let me just really bring everything to the table, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure. If you vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are voting for a criminal. Don't give me the FBI line of "choose not to convict." The man spent the first half of the address enumerating her illegalities! A vote for her is a vote for a godless, God damned, cold and heartless bitch who is more worthy than any I have ever known to wear the label of "See You Next Tuesday."

Oh- Dear limp-wristed, butt-hurt, automaton, social justice whiner type readers? Don't you dare tell me to calm down, take it easy, stop being so hostile, chill my rhetoric, or any of that bullshit that only applies to everyone but yourselves.

I've tiptoed around; I've tried to be civil; I've tried to be decent when it came to this current political climate- But fuck it. If the rule of law means nothing to this bloated and colorless sack of flesh, then frankly folks- I don't give a damn. What should really put the fear of man into this current government, however, is I am only one of millions who feel the same way.

You fail to enforce the law justly? You hide the truth? You cover up wrongdoing? You wink at criminal acts? You allow treason? Fine. Where you won't speak out, we will. Sadly, where you won't act, there are those who will. I hope and pray it never comes to that, and I will certainly condemn any who take the call to action as a call to violence. Nevertheless, I am calling it down the line, as I see it, and there has been enough shit from the federal government in the last year to fuel the rage of the few violently unhinged types for several lifetimes.

The future is far from bright, folks. Now that the government has dropped the facade of being "of the people, by the people and for the people," there is nothing to actually stop them- Except for roughly one hundred and fifty million plus exceedingly pissed off, disgusted and fired up citizens; a powder keg for which only the slightest relative failure, injustice and/or excessive use of power will cause an explosively catastrophic chain of events that history will trace back - To the Obama Regime, and Hillary Rodham Clinton's "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

So no thanks- I won't be ready for Hillary anytime soon. She does not belong anywhere but a prison cell.

For that matter, I'm not feeling the Bern, nor do I think we can Trump the system. In all honesty, I'm preparing to weather a massive and potentially violent reset of the structure of this country, and I highly recommend doing the same.

Or, you could just vote for the psycho bitch.

Funeral Planning on Father's Day

2016-06-24T01:34:00.000-06:00

It is with a heavy heart that I come back to the blog.

Days before this past Father's Day, we had a tragic death in the family.

My Stepfather's youngest brother, Doug, hung himself. It was sudden, and it is as yet unexplained. Very often, when stories of a suicide come to light, we hear of a note being left behind; or a journal that explains everything; or some sort of heartfelt letter on a computer or social media.

Unfortunately, at least at the time of writing this, I know of no such thing happening here.

My Mom, Stepfather Dave, and the whole family are still in shock- And as one might imagine, grieving at levels that thankfully many do not know.

...as one might imagine, [they are] grieving at levels that thankfully many do not know.

I remember talking with Doug at Mom and Dave's wedding. He was smart, funny, and had a big heart. I remember thinking to myself on the way home I hope I see more of that guy. He was awesome!

Sadly, none of the following visits seemed to allow for this.

It's rare that someone leaves a deep and lasting imprint on us, but that was the sort of person I found Doug to be: Kind, easy to be around, and unforgettable.

Regardless of what brought on this terrible event, all who knew him now must figure out how to live without him. This may normally be uncomplicated for some folks, but I think that in Doug's case, it may be hard even for these.

This is the second person I have known who has committed suicide by hanging. The first was a good friend and a brother of sorts days before my 16th birthday. Now, an Uncle by marriage who made such a big impact over the course of a single day- And his coming mere days before Father's Day.

No one should ever have to plan a funeral over a day dedicated to fathers- And certainly, no father should ever have to plan the funeral of his son. Yet this was the reality for Mom, Dave and his family.

No one should ever have to plan a funeral over a day dedicated to fathers- And certainly, no father should ever have to plan the funeral of his son.

My Mom recently wrote about this event on her blog; please feel free to check it out.

The family has also been under terrible financial strain, and with Doug's suicide, they are now reaching out for help. Reaching out to all of you.

If you can donate anything to help cover the cost of burial and funeral, please consider doing so. Anything above the goal (which is the cost of burial and funeral expenses- No fluff) will go to set up a trust fund for his two children. If you cannot give, then please share this campaign on the social media of your choice.

Thank you for all of your prayers, condolences, thoughts, well wishes, and support. It means the world to the whole family.

God bless you.

The 5th Podium

The Church Of Sodom

The Dissenters

Rodney Howard-Browne

Tony Spell

Where Lanes Merge

The Points Of Defense

The House Of Cards

The Church Of Sodom

Time To Grow Up America

To The Rescue...?

The Freedom Of The Press

Intellectual Bankruptcy

Special Education

The Spidey Phrase

Globalism Series - Open Borders

Confessions Of An Angry Driver

Globalism Series - Globalism

The "Big Problem"

The Attempted Solutions

The Actual Solution

Breathe Easy... For Now

Globalism Series Introduction

What Has Been Will Be Again

Memoria Venellam *

Veritas Utrum

Nothing New Under The Sun

Envy The Dead

The Plight of the Living

The Plight of the Unborn

The Plight of Society

History Calling

What Is The United States Declaration Of Independence?

The Five Parts of the Document

What the Declaration of Independence Means

What Happened

Assassination Justification

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Killing Children

Where Is The Outcry Now?

Life Or The Party

News Commentary Break: Lorde, The UN, And Israel

Bullspit Of Epic Proportions

"A Difficult Time"

The Sins Of America

The Treason Of The United Nations

A Notable Event

Tradition Reigns

Setting The Scene Correctly Here is a more realistic setting for the Nativity scene.

The Baby Jesus

Bottom Line

Beyond The Bend

[This is the second installment in a new series. The first is HERE.]

The Edge Of Loss

Wasteland Of Desperation

Death Of The Faithful

Sour Hopes And Sick Hearts

Bait And Switch

The Meeting Place

[The second installment in what is becoming a series can be found HERE.]

This Is Not The End

President-Elect Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

President Barack Obama

The U.S. Senate

The House of Representatives

Where's The Good News?

How Christians Should Respond

The Blood of Christ

The Suffering of Christ

Why Was A Sacrifice Necessary?

The Magnitude Of Christ's Sacrifice

What Does All Of This Mean? (Or: TL;DR)

Considering Erick Erickson's Reconsideration

It is strange to me that in an article which begins by examining compromise, the author seems to compromise on the language and tone of the article. Just my personal take on how this section's communication was constructed; you get it free of charge.

I urge everyone to keep this one, vital fact in mind regardless of their faith: Ms. Clinton is a pathological liar, and voting for her is very much an ethical crime for all but the most ethically and morally corrupt.

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 2

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 1

Dropping the Act

...or, The Day the U.S. Government Ended the Facade

Setting The Scene Correctly

Here is a more realistic setting for the Nativity scene.