Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

Obama’s Amnesty: What Is Our Duty As Christian Americans?

November 15, 2014

American Christianity 2PROLOGUE: This past week, I have gotten into several “discussions” on Political Facebook Pages with several Liberal “friends”, concerning the news out of Washington that President Barack Hussein Obama was going to grant amnesty to 5 million criminals, who have broken into our country, via Executive Order. They all jumped on me, giving me instructions as to how I should think and act, due to my unashamed pronouncement of my Christian Faith. While answering them back as best as I could at the time, I felt that they deserved a more complete answer, so that I would not be misunderstood.

So, hold on to something. Here we go.

(Romans 13:1-7) This Biblical passage leaves no doubt  that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government is in opposition to one of God’s commands (Acts 5:29).

America’s current invasion by illegal aliens, including the recent influx and distribution of underage Latin American Minors, who were transported up to our southern Border by the Drug Cartels, is an example of Roman 13: 1-7.

Illegal immigration is the breaking of a governmental law. There is no scripture in the Holy Bible that contradicts a nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is a sin, rebellion against God, to illegally enter into another country.

Illegal immigration is definitely a controversial issue, not only in the United States, but in European countries, as well, as they are being invaded by Muslims who are setting up Sharia Law in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark.

The fact of the matter is, Romans 13:1-7 does not give any Christian permission to violate a law just because it is unjust. Again, the issue is not the fairness of a law.

Judge Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American judge and Republican politician and the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He is noted for his prior refusal, in 2003, as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge. On November 13, 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.

On November 6, 2012, Moore won election back to the office of Alabama Chief Justice, defeating replacement Democratic candidate Bob Vance.

During his swearing-in ceremony Moore told an overflow audience, some of who watched from another room on closed circuit television,

We’ve got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some Scripture or is backed by Scripture.

The following is an Opinion Piece he has written, which is as good a one on the subject of this blog, as I have read.

Immigration and Christian Duty

Just last week a reporter covering the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention asked me about the debate in the Christian community over the treatment of illegal immigrants: should we demonstrate Christian love and concern for their salvation or should we oppose amnesty legislation and enforce the immigration laws? The answer is yes: we can and should do both. America is a nation of immigrants. From the beginning, people have come here for freedom and prosperity. As early as 1783, George Washington wisely explained the privileges and duties of those seeking to become citizens of our Country: The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

…The Statue of Liberty still beckons from the New York Harbor, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” We should never turn our backs to those who show by their “decency and propriety of conduct” that they deserve to live here as an American citizen. But as Washington explained, citizenship entails not only the rights and privileges which flow from it, but also the duties and responsibilities which entitle an individual to its enjoyment.

Immigration is the legal means by which one becomes a citizen of the United States. It has historically required an application process for citizenship, including a test, an investigation, and an oath of allegiance to our Country and Constitution. To call those illegally residing here “immigrants” is an insult to those who have demonstrated the patience, responsibility, and fortitude to immigrate here legally.

When a person – from any country – enters our Country illegally, makes no application for citizenship, does not learn our language, does not care for our customs, and seeks only the benefits of living in America, they have not “immigrated” here at all. They are not “immigrants,” but rather, “illegal aliens.” Recent “May Day” demonstrations by illegal aliens that feature Mexican flags, anti-American slogans, and racist statements against “gringos” only confirm the intentions of many illegal aliens to not assimilate into our culture and way of life, but to displace it with their own. Their lack of “decency and propriety of conduct” show they neither desire nor deserve to be legal citizens.

…Unfortunately, too many Christians have been deceived to think that our duty to love and care for illegal aliens means that we should ignore immigration laws and disregard our borders. But as President Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Our borders are compromised by illegal immigration, infiltration of terrorists, and by government policies of regional partnership that actually dilute the sovereignty of the United States. The choice is not between our Christian duty and our border laws,  it’s a matter of life or death for our nation. The same God who commands that we treat aliens and “strangers” with righteousness and justice also clearly defined the physical borders for the nation of Israel, in detailed geographical terms, in Numbers 34. Israel, then and today, would not exist without borders?and neither will America. We should love and care for “the stranger among us” and always be mindful of their need for salvation. But we also have a duty to apply all laws equally and fairly without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. Our immigration laws must be strictly and justly enforced. It’s not only a matter of national survival. It’s our Christian duty.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States have come for the purpose of having a better life, providing for their families, and escaping from poverty. These are good goals and motivations. However, it is not biblical to violate a law to achieve something “good.” Caring for the poor, orphans, and widows is something the Bible commands us to do (Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; 2:2-15). However, the biblical fact that we are to care for the downtrodden does not mean we should violate the law in doing so. Supporting, enabling, and/or encouraging illegal immigration is, therefore, also a violation of God’s Word. Those seeking to immigrate to another country should always obey the immigration laws of that country. While this may cause delays and frustrations, these reasons do not give a person the right to violate a law.

So, what is the biblical solution to illegal immigration? Simple…don’t do it; obey the laws.

Liberals tend to attempt to set the boundaries and to change the teachings of Jesus Christ to fit with their “political collective” mindset. The turning of political situations, such as “Obamacare, “The Mexican Munchkin Migration”, and now, Amnesty, into “humanitarian catastrophies” are just the most recent examples.

Their claim concerning salvation is framed in similar terms. Liberals, including President Barack Hussein Obama, put forth the opinion that Salvation is a group experience, , likening it to a political movement, which could not be further from the truth, couching their political ideology-driven benevolence behind the term “Social Justice”.

I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the Founders of this cherished land.

It is interesting to me, that the “most caring people in the room”, whom, under normal circumstances, want Conservative American Christians to sit down, shut up, and limit their faith to Sunday mornings from 10 a.m. – Noon, now are lecturing us about how we should support their fallen messiah’s plan to grant Amnesty to 5 million Illegal Aliens.

I will wrap up this post by quoting  Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice…

The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social (collective) salvation, but it does have social implications.

Luke 20:25 

And he (Jesus) said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar‘s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Christian Americans, Homosexuality, and the Bible (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

November 8, 2014

PhilRobertsonCartoon9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Coringthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

While sitting in my car, in the parking lot of a Walmart last night, waiting for my wife to come back from grocery shopping, I started thinking about America and God’s Providence.

Is the decayed position our society finds itself in the result of God’s taking his hand of protection off of the nation he built?

I don’t think so. As the popular movie, “God’s Not Dead”, pointed out so well, God is still moving in America.

And, Americans still know, in their hearts, the difference between right and wrong. Please refer to Tuesday’s Midterm Elections, for an example.

Earler this week, a Cincinnati Appeals Court upheld the ban on Gay Marriage, which had been overwhelmingly voted for by Americans in four states.

As I have written time and again, American is still an overwhelmingly Christian-Majority Natiion, as 76% of our countrymen and women, proclaim Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, per Gallup.

That being said, is homosexual marriage a “Civil Right, or the use of a word, defined as the union of one man and one woman to glorify and normalize a sexual sin?

Shane Idelman, the founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Lancaster, California, just North of Los Angeles, just released his 7th book, “Desperate for More of God”. Shane’s sermons, articles, books, and radio program can all be found at http://www.wcfav.org. He recently wrote the following thought-provoking opinion piece, “Gay Marriage: What Does the Bible Really Say?” for The Christian Post.

I have nothing but compassion for those trapped in sexual sin. My hope is that readers will read the entire article before drawing conclusions. Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual behavior also strongly believe in unconditional love and forgiveness. To say that authentic Christians hate or fear those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith.

To “confront in love” simply comes from a desire to honor God and to truly love and care for others. The ability to relate to people on their level, show genuine concern, and love them regardless of their lifestyle is the mark of true Christianity.

In case you don’t continue reading, let me offer some encouragement: If you’re hopeless, depressed, and confused, look to the One who created you. He has the answers. No matter what you have done, you have the ability to turn to Christ and start anew. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

It’s no surprise that the Church, and our nation, desperately need to hear “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” to awaken, convict, and restore. It was not so long ago that we were concerned about “the fall of America.” America cannot fall because she has already fallen. We are now picking up the pieces of a broken nation reflected in our laws, lives, families, and children. America’s moral heartbeat has ceased because we cut off the source of life. We need resuscitation, renewal, and revival of the truth.

Unfortunately, those who are sounding the alarm are often categorized as irrational, judgmental, bigoted, and intolerant. But how can we warn if we won’t confront, correct if we won’t challenge, and contend if we won’t question? We must speak the truth in love…the Bible is crystal clear on sexual sin, including homosexuality.

Why is there a lack of conviction today? The reason may not be only in the pew, but in the pulpit as well. Pastors focused only on feel-good messages, pleasing the masses, and not being controversial, are in a dangerous spot. God’s Word does not call us to make the truth popular, but to make the truth clear.

The majority of the churches in America are seeking to please the masses rather than convict. Judgment is never mentioned, repentance is rarely sought, and sin is often excused. We want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict. This leaves people confused and deceived because we teach and live a form of Christianity void of repentance…void of truth.

Many reject the Bible as absolute truth because absolute truth, by definition, is exclusive. But they fail to realize that relativism is also exclusive—it excludes those who hold to absolutes. People will accept numerical truth such as 2 + 2 = 4, but they don’t like “moral” truth.

They want the freedom to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, which, according to Scripture, leads to their our own destruction. God’s Word says to confront, confess, and turn from our sins, whereas relativism encourages us to ignore, overlook, and continue in them. Relativism says, “If it ‘feels’ good, do it.” If you doubt this, simply read all the negative comments that will occur after this article is posted. When darkness is exposed, it lashes out (cf. Romans 1).

Consider the following in light of God’s truth:

1. The “moral” laws in the Old Testament such as killing, stealing, lying, adultery, sexual immorality, and so on are all valid today. Jesus referred often to the Old Testament, and said that He didn’t come to abolish it, but to fulfill it. Although many of the ceremonial and dietary laws of the Old Testament do not apply today, the moral laws do. They are as significant today as they have been throughout history. For example, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination….” To suggest that this verse is invalid today is to advocate the dangerous practice of redefining or deleting what God has said. Jesus referred to the Old Testament often in regard to moral behavior.

The consequences of wrong actions may have changed, but the moral implications remain the same. For instance, even though we no longer stone to death those who commit adultery, this does not mean that adultery is acceptable or any less dangerous. Adultery is wrong even though there aren’t legal consequences.

2. Jesus condemned “all” sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman when He said, “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications…these defile a man” (Matthew 15:19). Jesus was implying that all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is harmful and immoral. The word “fornication” in the Greek is porneia; where the word “pornography” comes from. We cannot say, “But I was born this way,” because we were all born to lie, cheat, lust, and deceive, but this doesn’t make it right…it makes us sinful and in need of a Savior.

3. An argument cannot be based solely on silence. To suggest that Jesus approved of homosexuality simply because He did not use the term “homosexual,” is to imply that He approved of necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. But, of course, we know better.

4. Other passage in the New Testament are clear on this issue as well. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 are good places to start. In short, mankind did not see fit to acknowledge God and they suppressed the truth; therefore, God gave them over to a depraved mind-to do those things which are not proper. Homosexual behavior, and sexual sin in general, is comparable with dishonoring the body and turning from God. “The sexual disordering of the human race is a judgment of God for exchanging Him for the creature, said theologian John Piper.

5. Jesus said that since the beginning of creation, God created them male and female in order that they would be joined together and become one flesh. He adds, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9). Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s plan since creation. No matter how many laws are passed in favor of gay-marriage, it will not change God’s mind. Man often rebels against God; this is nothing new.

In closing, Jesus would often speak out against sin, but His love and mercy also reached out to those who regretted and hated their condition. Forgiveness is a mark of genuine faith. We should have compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction because we all struggle with sin, but at the same time, we should not condone or excuse this type of sin any more than we condone or excuse any other sin.

I believe the position that America finds itself in, is a result of a lack of moral guidance from generations before. The Bible tells us to lead children in the ways in which they should go. As humans, we are fallen creatures, who often do not do the right thing. Being good parents is one of those things which God requires of us.

Now, I’m not saying that homosexuality is the result of failed parenting. As most of you are aware, homosexuality can have several causes. In college, when I took the class, “The Sociology of Deviant Behavior”, back around the late seventies, the professors at that time theorized that homosexuality was caused by any number of social and psychological causes. Whether it be a dominant mother, an effeminate father, or some sort of deep shock to the system when the individual is young, they theorized that homosexuality could come from a myriad of experiences in each individual’s life.

The only thing that I can say for certain is that it is not a biological predisposition.

Why do I say that?

The reason for my comment, is the fact that scientists have tried to identify a gene or some genetic marker that causes homosexuality. And, as of today , in 2014, they have been stymied in their attempts to find a biological cause for homosexuality.

In recent years. Liberals have pushed homosexuality as normal sexual behavior. They have featured it on television shows, in movies, books, and encouraged mass demonstrations of it, in public, if you will, as Professional wrestler Dusty Rhodes used to say.

However, try as they may, a majority of Americans still view it as abnormal behavior. And, as demonstrated in the last few years by popular vote, the majority of Americans remain against Gay Marriage.

In confrontations with homosexuals,, concerning their behavior, our opposition to their sexual lifestyle, as Christians, is based on Christian concern and compassion for their very souls.

However, what gets in the way of Christians’ efforts to reach out to homosexuals, is the fact that God gave us all free will.

And yes, if you are homosexual and reading this, it is your right as an American and as a human being to exercise the free will which the Lord gave you, when he made you. However, do not expect him to approve of your sin, or expect me as a Christian American, to give you free license to engage in your sexual sin.

Because, you see, God gave me free will as well, and being American born, I have the Constitutional Right to speak my mind…in the street, behind a pulpit, or in the voting booth.

I don’t hate you. As an acquaintance or if  you are  with a family member, I love you. I will pray for you. I will work with you. I will invite you inside my home. I will be your friend.

However, I will, out of Christian love, tell you straight to your face that what you are engaging in is wrong.

As the author says in the article, confronting the sinner is not an act of hatred, it’s an act of Christian Concern.

If you are an American Liberal, one of the 23 percent of our population who believe that political ideology, do not attempt to tell me that my ideas about traditional marriage and about what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, are wrong.

Someone possessing a higher pay grade than you, is Whom I listen to.

And, He left me a guide to make sure that I get it right.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Liberals Step Up Efforts to Control What is Said From the Pulpit

November 2, 2014

American Christianity 2In the last few years, during the Obama Administration, there has been a concerted effort by American Liberals to enforce the fallacy known as “The Separation of Church and State”.

Those behind this fascist initiative are so adamant about it, that they are trying to limit what American Christian Leaders can say from the pulpit, a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

If  the “Smartest People in the Room” thought that Men of God would acquiesce to their edicts, they gravely overestimated their own authority, as The Blaze.com reports

After a church-state watchdog sent out 84,000 letters urging faith leaders and churches, alike, to be mindful of IRS restrictions that govern political activity, the organization claims it received dozens of fiery responses from religious leaders who were less than content with the group’s warning.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced earlier this month that it had recently sent the letter to houses of worship and sectarian leaders across the nation, warning in the text against endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

“We merely want houses of worship to follow the rules, stay out of partisan politics and keep their tax exemption,” Simon Brown, the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a blog post. “And when we explain to clergy what the law requires, we do so in a respectful way.”

But Brown said that some of the recipients didn’t appreciate the reminder, as numerous faith leaders opted to send the letters back along with some fiery messages expressing their dissatisfaction; others called or emailed Americans United with similar sentiment.

A representative for the organization told TheBlaze Thursday that 45 angry responses have already come flooding in and that more are expected in the coming days.

Among the surprising mix of messages came a fiery letter addressed to the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, from a man described as a Catholic priest.

It read, in part, “As for your solicitude regarding our legal well-being, I ask that you shove it up your fat white a–.”

Another unnamed religious leader wrote the words “drop dead” on the document before sending it back.

Others wrote messages telling Americans United that they have no plans to comply with the organization’s reminder to follow tax law.

One faith leader took to his red marker to write, “Come and get me; I DARE YOU!”

There was also another faith leader who simply tore the letter up into tiny pieces and sent it back to the organization with no accompanying message.

It’s clear from the responses that some faith leaders clearly oppose the IRS regulations that come along with their tax-exempt status, though contention surrounding these legal parameters is nothing new.

At the center of the debate over church politicking is the Johnson Amendment, a controversial IRS code added in 1954 that precludes nonprofit organizations — churches included — from engaging in campaign activity.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group and Americans United, among others, have long clashed with conservative groups over the issue of church politicking, with the right-leaning legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom organizing the annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” event.

The initiative, which last unfolded October 5, encourages pastors “to reclaim their right to speak freely from the pulpit by preaching an election-related sermon” — an act that flies in the face of the letter that Americans United sent to preachers.

Have you ever wondered where the expression “separation of church and state” came from?

David Barton, writing at wallbuilders.com, presents the following explanation:

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

…Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Liberals wish to silence the voices and sublimate the rights of Christian Americans, who actually constitute  76% of America’s population, per Gallup.

And, as the systematic overturning of the will of the American People concerning Homosexual Marriage through government-backed Judicial Activism has shown us, they will eliminate the Christian Viewpoint from America’s Political Arena, by any means necessary.

That is why it is so important for Americans to vote this coming Tuesday.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – Edmund Burke

Now, as I sit back and wait for the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth, allow me to leave you with this thought:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

– Richmond v. Moore, (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Anti-Semitism and the American Liberal: Obama Administration Calls Netanyahu a “chicken****”

October 31, 2014

Have you heard about the latest garbage perpetrated by the Obama Administration in their long-lasting animus toward the nation of Israel?

Senator Ted Cruz explains the consequences of the Obama Policy of Animus toward Israel for our nation in an Op Ed for time.com .

This week, the world was treated to yet another embarrassing display of the Obama administration’s incompetent foreign policy.

According to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, various anonymous officials referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as both “a chicken****” and “a coward.” While these indefensible comments have received the lion’s share of media attention, the substantive remarks about Iran were even more troubling. Goldberg wrote that another senior official claimed that due to their pressure on Netanyahu, it is now “too late” for Israel to stop Iran from amassing an “atomic arsenal.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told the White House press corps on Tuesday that the President likely does not know who did this, and there is no effort underway to find out. Other officials have signaled that these persons may be disciplined in ways that are have not been disclosed. But, regardless, they will continue to serve at the pleasure of the President because, as Earnest said, such things happen almost every day in this administration.

In other words, this is no big deal.

With all due respect, this is a very big deal. This is an unprecedented attack on a critical ally of the United States at a moment of international crisis. It is a de facto admission to the mullahs in Tehran that the Obama administration thinks it is too late to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is an inexcusable betrayal of the national security of the American people.

Do the Democrats agree with what Obama administration officials are saying about Israel and its leaders? Do they also concede that a nuclear Iran is inevitable? If not, will they call on the President to identify and fire the persons making these assertions? These questions should be asked—and answered—before Americans head to the polls next Tuesday.

It is my hope that Congress can unite to reverse this administration’s approach by defending our allies and standing up to hostile actors in the world. When the White House acts recklessly, Congress should swiftly act to defend our nation. We will not be able to do so if the Senate is led by Harry Reid acting as a rubber stamp for President Obama. Either the Democrats should denounce the Obama Administration’s dangerous policies or the voters should send them home in November.

As disgraceful as these comments were, at least they bring crystal clarity to the choice we face as a nation on November 4th. Choose wisely.

Indeed.

While we are on the subject of Israel…

Why do Liberals hate Israel?  And, why are the majority of American Jews Liberal?

This is a paradox that has perplexed Christian Conservative Americans, such as myself, for a long time.  What is it about the existence of the state of Israel that vexes the minds of Liberals and Progressives so?

David Mamet, a former Liberal turned Conservative author wrote a book titled, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, which studied in depth the themes he announced in his 2008 op-ed for the Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal.’

June 11th, 2011, americanthinker.com’s Rick Richman posted an article, reviewing Mamet’s new book. In this article, the author touches upon the subject of Liberal Anti-Semitism:

In a chapter entitled “The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Socialism and Anti-Semitism,” he first argues that “social justice” is a sort of Sunday religion that does not carry over to the pressures of the workweek, and he illustrates his thought as follows:

One may bemoan the plight of the Palestinians, who have elected a government of terrorists and daily bomb their neighbor to the West, but we realize that any support past the sentimental is elective: we do not want to live there, nor to go there, and we blink at the knowledge that monies spent in their support may be diverted to the support of terror, and of organizations pledged not only to kill all the Jews, but to kill Americans and Westerners of all faiths.

Where does sympathy stop, and where may it not become sanctimony and hypocrisy?

And then he answers his own question with a mini-drama:

Our American plane has been forced to land at some foreign airport, by the outbreak of World War III. It will not be allowed to depart. Two planes are leaving the airport; we must choose which we want to board. One plane is flying to Israel and one to Syria, and we must choose.

That’s where the sympathy stops.

No one reading this book would get on the plane to Syria. Why? It is a despotism, opposed to the West, to women, to gays, to Jews, to free speech. … And yet one may gain status or a feeling of solidarity by embracing the “Arab cause.”

Mamet’s mini-drama works even if you believe Israel is not a “laudable precious democracy” but “guilty of all the horrors” alleged against it:

I assert that you would still fight with every force and argument at your command to get on the Israeli plane, you and every hard Leftist and every head-shaking misinformed One Worlder and anti-Semite up to and including Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky, would, if the issue were his life, suspend his most cherished convictions of Israeli perfidy, and plead for the protection of that state you would then not only acknowledge but assert to be your ally …

There is nothing any reader of this book would not say or do to get himself and his family on the Israeli plane.

Per the americanthinker.com article, one of Mamet’s own previous books: The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, which is basically an extended letter to his fellow Jews, has a Foreword to the book which ends with this striking paragraph:

To the Jews who, in the sixties, envied the Black Power Movement; who, in the nineties, envied the Palestinians; who weep at Exodus but jeer at the Israel Defense Forces; who nod when Tevye praises tradition but fidget through the seder; … whose favorite Jew is Anne Frank and whose second-favorite does not exist; who are humble in their desire to learn about Kwanzaa and proud of their ignorance of Tu Bi’Shvat; … who bow the head reverently at a baptism and have never attended a bris – to you, who find your religion and race repulsive, your ignorance of your history a satisfaction, here is a book from your brother.

Also, per the article, in his new book, The Secret Knowledge, Mamet asks the following pertinent and poignant question:

Why would any American Jew wish to become a “citizen of the world”? This fantasy is akin to one who believes in the benevolence of Nature. Anyone ever lost in the wild knows that Nature wants you dead. Enjoy the benefits of liberty and defend them as an American, rather than posing as a “citizen of the world.”

In an earlier article, posted on June 2, 2011, on americanthinker.com, Why Does the Left Hate Israel,  Richard Baehr attempts to answer David Mamet’s question:

…I have been to several of the left wing Israel hate fests. They are scary. There is real passion in the air. There is something about Israel that gets the juices going. Anti—Semitism is a part of it. There are a lot of people who are envious of Jews, on the left as well as the right. Patrick Buchanan thinks Jews have hijacked the conservative movement. But on the left, particularly in the academy, and in journalism, I am certain there is professional envy of the many Jewish faces and what better way to get even, and get back for sometimes losing the competitive battle, than by picking on the Jewish state as a surrogate. Leftist Jews sometimes lead the assault against Israel in these venues, thereby giving the attacks, whatever their reason, greater moral authority. Few Jews will stand up for Israel in these environments, because of the great pressure on the left to conform to the group think in the institutions they control.

…The evidence I believe is clear today that Israel faces far greater threats from the left than the right. The left is reflexively anti—Israel and has established important beachheads in significant American institutions— academia, the media, and the old line Protestant ‘high’ churches, as well as in the very seats of government power in many Western European countries, and their intelligentsia. It is not surprising that Israel seems unable to get a fair shake from college professors, the BBC, Reuters, NPR, or liberal churches. Being anti—Israel has become part of their religion.

As a Christian American, I know whom I support in the Middle East:  God’s Chosen People. 

You see, I’ve read The Book.  I know the ending.  Hallelujah!

In the meantime, pajamasmedia.com’s Andrew Klaven presents the following solution to the problem of Israel, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

As he himself says:

Now, why didn’t somebody think of this before?

 

 

 

Houston Mayor Withdraws Subpoenas of Pastors’ Sermons

October 30, 2014

American Christianity 2A rebuke of Biblical proportions happened in Houston, Texas, yesterday.

The Christian Post reports that

Houston Mayor Annise Parker has announced that she will withdraw the subpoenas against five pastors who have spoken out against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, an LGBT city ordinance that some opponents claim would allow men to use women’s public restrooms.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” Parker said during Wednesday’s press conference.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our equal rights ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” added Parker, who’s the city’s first openly-gay mayor.

Earlier this month it was revealed that the city of Houston had subpoenaed five pastors regarding a rejected referendum about a recently passed LGBT city ordinance, known by the acronym, HERO.

HERO amended Houston’s Code of Ordinances, prohibiting discrimination in public facilities and private employment on the basis of “protected characteristics.”

This list of protected characteristics included race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, familial and marital status, military status, disability, religion, genetic information, pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Opponents of HERO claim it will have several unintended consequences, such as allowing transgender men to use women’s restrooms.

Critics turned in a petition to get the ordinance repealed or put on the ballot, which Houston’s city attorney rejected. In response, conservatives filed suit.

Five Houston pastors whom city officials believed opposed the ordinance were told they had to turn over all sermons they had preached regarding homosexuality, HERO, and about the mayor, who is a practicing lesbian.

The subpoenas garnered nationwide criticism from liberal and conservative organizations alike, with Parker initially narrowing the scope of the subpoenas to include “speeches” rather than “sermons.”

Parker’s decision to drop the subpoenas came days in advance of the “I Stand Sunday,” event in which multiple conservative groups, along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the Benham brothers, and members of the “Duck Dynasty” cast united for a 90-minute simulcast in solidarity with the five pastors.

Hours before the Mayor’s change of heart was announced, Fox News Insider reported that

In a fiery commentary on Mayor Annise Parker’s actions, Mike Huckabee called for American pastors to show their opposition by sending her their sermons and a Bible.

“So, I’ve got an idea – if she wants some sermons, here’s my suggestion. I’d like to ask every pastor in America, not just the ones in Houston, send her your sermons. Obviously, she could use a few. So, if you’re a pastor, send them to her. And here’s another thought, everybody watching the show ought to send her a Bible. That’s right, everybody. I hope she gets thousands and thousands of sermons and Bibles,” said the former governor on Oct. 20. 

Well, now the mayor’s office has said that it has gotten between 500-1,000 Bibles and that they will be distributed to churches.

I wonder if this tremendous backlash had anything to do with the Mayor’s stopping the subpoenas.

Could be.

This attempt by the Houston Mayor to control what the pastors in her city said from the pulpit is a direct attack on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Let’s review the First Amendment, shall we?

The First Amendment (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The following are quotes by famous Americans about this American Right:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. – George Washington

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. – Mark Twain

I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it’s equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people. – Brad Thor

I begin to feel like most Americans don’t understand the First Amendment, don’t understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don’t understand that it’s the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. – Roger Ebert

We don’t have an Official Secrets Act in the United States, as other countries do. Under the First Amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are more important than protecting secrets. – Alan Dershowitz

Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality, which exists in all parts of the world, unfortunately. – Lawrence Ferlinghetti

If Her Honor…err…His Honor…err…umm…whatever…thought that Houston’s Men of God were just going to meekly hand over their Sermon Notes, foregoing their Ordination as Preachers of God’s Word and simultaneously giving up their First Amendment Rights, she overestimated her position of authority greatly.

The Houston Pastors answer to Someone with a higher pay grade.

She was outranked all along.

…and, outnumbered.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Glen Campbell And The Still Small Voice (A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection)

October 26, 2014

glencampbell1One of my favorite entertainers has always been Glen Campbell. Like many Americans my age, I grew up watching him on television with my parents, as we sat there entertained by his weekly variety show, “The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour”  (1969-1972)

This past week, Glen’s wife, Kim, wrote the following opinion piece for Fox News, in conjunction with the release of his final album  and a documentary, detailing Glen’s journey through the stages of Alzheimer’s Disease.

It touched my heart. I believe it will touch your heart as well.

My husband, Glen Campbell, has stage 6 Alzheimer’s disease. Seven months ago, at the recommendation of his doctors, we placed him in a memory care facility close to our home in Nashville.

It’s a community that’s designed specifically for the needs of those who have Alzheimer’s and dementia. They have all kinds of therapies and activities that stimulate parts of the brain affected by the illness. It’s a safe and secure environment where he receives around-the-clock care.

It’s been good for him. He just seems more at peace there than he was at home, where he became increasingly agitated and frantic.

He lives in a mental fog most of the time. He’s lost most of his language skills and has a hard time communicating. He still has moments of lucidity, though, and those moments let us know he’s still in there and that he’s the Glen we’ve always known. He can make short sentences and say things like “I love you” and “We are so blessed.”

The aides and nurses say he must have been a godly man because they always see him thanking the Lord. I’ve seen him walk over to the window and lift up his hands and say, “Thank you, heavenly Father.” 
The aides and nurses say he must have been a godly man because they always see him thanking the Lord. I’ve seen him walk over to the window and lift up his hands and say, “Thank you, heavenly Father.”

Those moments are so comforting because when you’re facing your mortality, that’s when you want to know God is there. That’s when you really want to draw close to Him.

When I see him do that, I know God is with him, and he’s aware of His presence. He’s relying on the Lord and gets his strength from Him.

People should not give up on others who have dementia. The essence of who they are is still alive and still in there.

He’s still the Glen Campbell he’s always been. He’s always especially loved children and old people. There’s this little lady in a wheelchair in the facility, and she can’t speak at all. He will walk over to her and take her little hand in his and say, “You are so precious.”

He’ll kiss her on the forehead, and she’ll just look up at him. She has no idea who he is, but you can tell it comforts her.

Even in his affliction, he’s ministering to people and trying to be a blessing.

In between those moments, he’s lost. He wanders. He can’t communicate. He doesn’t understand what others say to him. It’s very hard to direct him even to sit in a chair in the dining room.

When we did the film, “Glen Campbell… I’ll Be Me,” which documents his last farewell tour, Glen was in stages 2-4. He knew what was happening to him and he wanted to let people know what Alzheimer’s is really like.

He was passionate about making this film because he hoped it would be a catalyst for more funding for research to find a cure. He wanted to encourage other families who are dealing with this disease to keep living their lives, supporting each other and lifting each other up.

When Glen got the diagnosis and decided to go public, it was because he wanted fans to know what was going on in case he exhibited odd behavior on stage, like repeating a song or forgetting what key it was in.

He just wanted them to understand. But after he made the announcement, we all wondered if anyone would want to come see someone with Alzheimer’s perform.

We wondered if his fans would rather remember him the way he was. Maybe it would be depressing. Or maybe no one would be interested either way.

But what we found was the exact opposite. The first show he did after making the announcement sold out. From the time he walked on stage to the time he walked off, it was one standing ovation after another. It was clear fans were there to shower him with love and to root for, support and encourage him. It really blessed Glen and encouraged him to continue on.

Offers began to pour in from around the country for Glen to come to their cities to perform.

What began as a five-week farewell tour turned into 151 dates. His last show was at the Uptown Theater in Napa, Calif., on Nov. 30, 2012.

The first 15-20 minutes were a train wreck. He was having difficulties. His guitar wasn’t loud enough. It didn’t have the quality he wanted. He became very agitated on stage. He kept turning his back to the audience. His band was very uncomfortable. It was a tough show.

But the audience, again, was so supportive. They cheered for him without fail and without question. They loved him unconditionally.

He snapped back and finished the show strong. It was good, but it was clear it was time for us to end the tour and say farewell.

He closed the show with “A Better Place.”  

Daily we pray for grace and mercy as he approaches the final stages of this illness and are so thankful for the moments we see Glen being Glen.

For those cynics out there, yes, Glen went off the rails for a time, during his marriage to Tanya Tucker. After that, though, Glen fell in love with Kim, and she led him back to Jesus Christ.

Recently, I had a Liberal atheist tell me that he believes that he has no soul.

Now, whether he was just trying to get a rise out of me on the Political Facebook Page we were chatting on, or whether he truly believes that, he could not be more wrong.

I worked in a hospital for 7 years, and have had close relationships with those in the medical profession, who have told me, over and over again, that when a man or woman passes away, if they have not made their peace with God, and listened to that Still, Small Voice within them, that the agony of their death remains frozen on their face. If they have made their peace with their Creator, there is a look of bliss and contentment on their face, as it should look, when you go to a better place.

Just as the essence, or soul, of Glen Campbell is shining through the fog of the Alzheimer’s  Disease, which is slowly taking his life, so should we allow the goodness, the Still Small Voice, which Christians know as the Holy Spirit, guide us through our daily lives.

There are moral absolutes and non-negotiable ethics.

God gives us Free Will, in order to make those choices for ourselves.

It is up to all of us to make good choices in our lives.

All we have to do is listen.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Muslim Terrorists Attack Canadian Parliament. Can It Happen Here…Again?

October 22, 2014

Canadien parliament 1Yesterday, Canada became a member of a club, consisting of a  growing list of nations around the world, who have been the victims of Muslim Terrorism.

The Globe and Mail reports that

The attack on Parliament Hill’s Centre Block and the National War Memorial has left one Canadian soldier and one male suspect dead.

During an address to the nation, Prime Minster Stephen Harper said the incident in Ottawa was a ‘terrorist’ act. Mr. Harper also indicated that it remains unclear whether the man shot dead on Parliament Hill Wednesday acted alone.

Together we will remain vigilant against those at home or abroad who wish to harm us.”

The Prime Minister concluded by stating that there will be no safe haven for terrorists and expressed confidence that Canadians will pull together in the wake of this week’s events.  

Ottawa Police and RCMP officers are still searching Parliament Hill.

Federal sources have identified the suspected shooter as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a man in his early 30s who was known to Canadian authorities.

Sources told The Globe and Mail that he was recently designated a “high-risk traveller” by the Canadian government and that his passport had been seized – the same circumstances surrounding the case of Martin Rouleau-Couture, the Quebecker who was shot Monday after running down two Canadian Forces soldiers with his car.

Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau has a record in Quebec in the early 2000s for petty crimes such as possession of drugs, credit-card forgery and robbery. He was also charged with robbery in 2011 in Vancouver.

The soldier who was killed was identified as Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, according to his aunt. Cpl. Cirillo, who was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a regiment of Reserve Forces based in Hamilton, was training to join the Canada Border Services Agency, his aunt told The Globe and Mail.

Sources are saying that both of these Islamic Converts wanted to join the out-of-control Terrorist Organization, ISIS.

The Edmonton Sun profiled the the first Muslim Convert, who ran down a solier this past Monday.

A Quebec man’s double life as a newly converted jihadist is under scrutiny now that he and his soldier target are dead, as family and law enforcement try to find out why he followed ISIS kill commands.

Police gunned down Martin “Ahmad” Couture-Rouleau late Monday morning after he ran down two soldiers, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, 53.

A portrait is emerging of a man who converted to Islam just last year amid personal issues that included a custody dispute with the mother of his three-year-old child.

His dad, Gilles Rouleau, called police this past summer, concerned his son wanted to join ISIS. The ultra-violent terrorist group has taken over wide areas of Syria and Iraq amid beheadings and reports of rape and child conscription.

From his home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., across town from the scene of the attack, Gilles Rouleau said he “never, never, never” thought his son could kill someone despite his own concerns about his radicalization.

“I knew that he had converted … I didn’t agree with it,” the dad told QMI Agency’s sister channel LCN from inside the front door of his house.

On the morning of the attack, he greeted his son as he always did.

“It was like any other morning,” said the father. “He said hi, he left just like that.”

Police say the attacker lay in wait for more than two hours in the parking lot near a Canadian Forces recruitment centre until the two soldiers, one wearing his uniform, emerged.

He ran them down and took off before flipping his car and being shot dead by local police.

Gilles Rouleau said he wishes he had done more to stop the carnage.

“If I thought there was a danger, I would have saved him.”

Why is it that Liberals are so dadgum naive about Islam? For example, let’s look for a moment at Barack Hussein Obama, President of these United States…

On September 24, 2014, Obama  spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s Breathtaking Naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

He asked delegates from nations across the world to mull this “central question of our global age: Whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.”

His answer? “It’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.”

Simply believing something doesn’t make it so. The president’s desire for a world in which nations talk openly about their true feelings, perhaps share a good cry together, and sing kumbaya around the campfire, is the height of naivete.

So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”

But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.

Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

An additional irony of the CIC’s speech is, the fact that, under the command of President Barack Hussein Obama, the United States of America has now bombed 7 Islamic countries: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Syria.

Awkward.

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, American or Canadian, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even Christianity, the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which America’s Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

As I have written before, when Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

Like the Canadian Military and members of their Parliament, for example…

Can what happened in Ottawa, Canada, happen in Washington, DC?

Well, aother idiot tried to bust into the White House, yesterday.

So, I would say, the answer is YES.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Shining the Light? Or, Just a Quixotic Folly? Why Do I Keep Blogging? (A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection)

October 19, 2014

American Christianity 2I am an anachronism.

I have been told that,  by “Libertarians”,repeatedly, on Internet Chat Boards, on the World Wide Web.

Dictionary.com defines an anachronism as

something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time.

I suppose that’s me.

I started this Blog as a way to vent my frustrations with the ever-evolving “societal norms” and political mayhem around me. A lot of things just grated on my nerves. They still do.

I was “reared” (as we say in Dixie) by a Mother and Daddy (Southern colloquialism for a Male Parental Unit) who were members of the Greatest Generation. In fact, I was born 3 days before my mother’s 40th brithday. To this day, I believe that they were going to name me “Oops”.

My view of the world around me was shaped and nurtured by my Daddy, a Christian American, and the finest man I’ve ever known, who served with an Army Engineering Unit, as a Master Sergeant, in World War II, and who jumped off of a perfectly good boat into a hail of gunfire to join his American Brothers in the tide-turning American Victory known as “D-Day”.

Between him and my Mother, they taught me what it was to be a hard-working, Middle Class Christian American Conservative….and, to be proud of it.

But now, at 55 years old, trying to survive the presidency of an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, card-carrying Communist, who went golfing yesterday, while sending more than 3,000 of our Brightest and Best, to Africa to be exposed to a disease which has now landed on our very shores, threatening our citizenry, I wonder if at times, if my self-assigned duty of writing this blog everyday, is actually worth the effort.  I’m beginning to feel like I’m beating my dadgum head against the wall until it’s bloody, and for no cotton-pickin’ reason at all.

Why am I feelng that way?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. This country re-elected an idiot. Now, I realize that’s been done before. But, they all paled in comparison to this guy. I believe that “Scooter”, my pet name for Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmm), burnt up the vast majority of his gray matter during his “Choom Gang” days in Hawaii, and now, as an old friend, a former Meth-head, who, sadly, later committed suicide this time of year, used to tell me, he has “2 brain cells left and they’re fighting to the death”. I pray we survive the next 4 years.

2.  Evidently, Americans, at least the majority of the ones that actually got up off the couch (Pookie, included) to vote on November 6th, want the Federal Government to take care of them, cradle to grave. Rush Limbaugh labelled this symptom, “The Baracky Claus Effect”.  I pray, that, just as the Proletariat eventually figured out in the old Soviet Union, Americans are going to wake up one day, to find that mega-dependence on The State to run your life, leads to the loss of personal freedom. And those, who believe that they are “the most enlightened people in the room”, will be the first ones hollering, when they discover that their freedom has been taken away.

3. America seems to be devolving into a collection of Libertines. Notice, I did not say “Libertarians”, although, both descriptive words come from the same root word. A Libertine is, per Merriam-Webster.com,

a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality: one leading a dissolute (lacking moral restraint) life

Being a Libertarian used to mean you wanted less Government in your life and less restrictions on your personal happiness. Notice I said used to mean. Now, Libertine and Libertarian both seem to mean the same thing to the majority of posters self-identifying as members of the latter group on Internet chat boards.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

I suppose I could pontificate on the fallen nature of Man at this point, but, that’s fairly self-evident…and, as the late Freddie Prinze used to say, “Ees not my yob, man.”

4. Finally, I was told the other day, during the before-mentioned “discussion” on that Facebook Page, that my blog was considered a “joke”. I allowed this to hurt me very deeply. You see, since April of 2010, I have devoted a lot of time and effort to putting my ideas, however old-fashioned and cornball they are, down on paper. I truly enjoy doing it. I must. I haven’t made a dadgum dime off of it.

A while back, I was asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

So, where do I go from here? Do I run away, with my tail between my legs, and live out the rest of my days in quiet desperation?

To any of you who repled, “yes”…you don’t know me very well.

Greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world.

My Creator, while endowing me with certain inalienable rights, also endowed me with an indomitable will. Then, somewhere along my journey, He gave me the gift of being able to express my thoughts and feelings on this computer keyboard.

I will not give up. I will not surrender my Christianity, my love of the greatest nation on God’s green Earth, or my Conservatism, to appease those who wish everybody would just get in line and acquiesce to the prevailing “societal norms”.  I follow another set of guidelines, written a long time ago, but which remain as relevant as the moment in which the Hand of God guided those who wrote them down.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, – Colossians 3:23 (ESV)

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

Houston City Government Subpoenas Sermons to Check for “Hate Speech”

October 14, 2014

American ChristianityCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

After Lenin and the Bolsheviks took over Mother Russia, Russian Orthodoxy, the predominant faith in Russia, was persecuted almost to extinction within 20 years. The Communists slaughtered hundreds of thousands of priests, sisters, and brothers.

Between 1917 and 1937, more than 50 million people were murdered by KGB extermination squads or in death camps, and 8 million people died of starvation in man-made famines designed to consolidate Communist power. All land was confiscated by the state.

Those who were left alive were allowed to live under Communist totalitarian control to help rally the people to fight the Nazi German invasion in 1939.

The Commies let some churches stay open if they were licensed by the Communist government. Of course,they were very limited in what they could do: they could celebrate liturgies and the sacraments, but they could not teach Russian Orthodoxy to children or to adults.

The Orthodox Church became just another a highly regulated arm of the Soviet government, and all newly ordained priests and bishops became agents or co-operates of the Secret Police (KGB). The sacraments of baptism and marriage, as well as funerals, were usually performed only after substantial fees were paid.

In all levels of the Soviet School System, Students were forced to learn and believe atheism as scientific truth. This belief system was reinforced in all youth organizations, as well.

There were no private Christian schools or clubs.

The fear of persecution and government reprisal during the period in which Joe Stalin ruled Russia (1927-52) made parents afraid to tell their children about the Triune God.

It only took two generations for Russia to become an atheistic society.

Is America headed in that direction?

Yesterday, the Alliance Defending Freedom announced that

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a motion in a Texas court to stop an attempt by the city of Houston to subpoena sermons and other communications belonging to several area pastors in a lawsuit in which the pastors are not even involved.

City officials are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each other’s restrooms. ADF attorneys say the city is illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.”

In June, the Houston City Council passed its “bathroom bill,” which sparked a citizen initiative to have the council either repeal the bill or place it on the ballot for voters to decide. The public submitted more than three times the legally required number of valid signatures, which the city secretary, who is entrusted by law to examine and certify petitions, certified as sufficient. The mayor and city attorney defied the law and rejected the certification.

After the initiative supporters filed a lawsuit, Woodfill v. Parker, over the matter, the city’s attorneys subpoenaed a number of area pastors, demanding to see what they preach from the pulpit and to examine their communications with their church members and others concerning the city council’s actions.

The ADF brief accompanying the motion filed in the District Court of Harris County to quash the subpoena “discovery requests” explains that they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious,” irrelevant to the lawsuit, and will have a profoundly negative effect on free speech and the electoral process should they be allowed to move forward.

“The message is clear: oppose the decisions of city government, and drown in unwarranted, burdensome discovery requests,” the brief states. “These requests, if allowed, will have a chilling effect on future citizens who might consider circulating referendum petitions because they are dissatisfied with ordinances passed by the City Council. Not only will the Nonparty Pastors be harmed if these discovery requests are allowed, but the People will suffer as well. The referendum process will become toxic and the People will be deprived of an important check on city government provided them by the Charter.”

According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes,

…Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.

“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.

However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.

Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.

“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”

Rev. Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

What right does the Houston City Government have, to subpoena sermons, spoken in private places of worship, constitutionally protected by the First Amendment?

With activist judges presently overturning the will of the American Voting Public, concerning allowing “Adam and Steve” to “marry”, why stops them from eventually deciding that preaching from the pulpit against homosexuality is a hate crime?

The following is Article 17 of the Baptist Faith and Message, found at sbc.net.

God alone is the Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of god, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things no contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

While God’s word does tell us to honor and obey our leaders, we are also warned of the consequences of being given over to “a reprobate mind”.

Do the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

Until He Comes,

KJ

The New Fascism (October 7, 2014 Edition)

October 6, 2014

White House Youth CorpsMy late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II,  now known as D-Day.

World War II was a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, and judicial activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

Look at the Supreme Court’s Ruling, or rather, lack of one,  on “gay marriage”, yesterday, yesterday.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill on through the latest changes to Obamacare by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

If America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,

KJ


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,617 other followers