The Two Spies Report

The "Minority Report" from J. Michael Bennett, Ph.D, Emeritus Producer of the Future Quake Radio Show, and Author of the soon-to-be-released book series The Holy War Chronicles – A Spiritual View of the War on Terror

Conservative Role Models in the Bible – Part 1

jesus_1498126c

 

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Even though I have repeatedly said that my posts here will only be sporadic due to the priority of getting my last book volume drafted and the whole Holy War Chronicles series published, the delay has been longer than normal due to a health crisis within my parents that has required me to be available out of state for much of the time over the last few months, and the foreseeable future; I would appreciate the prayers of all the readers for both of them, and for my siblings and myself.]

This post topic came to mind the other day when I was reminded of a recent project I heard about that created a “Conservative Bible” (the fact that CPAC is going on and in the news as I write this has also contributed, I am sure).  It was overseen by Andrew Schlafly, the originator of the Wikipedia variant “Conservapedia” (which only features data supporting conservative worldviews), and the son of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.  As a “grand dame” of the conservative movement, she shook the political world in 1964 with her book A Choice Not an Echo, and is recognized by historians by almost singlehandedly defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, after it had almost passed enough state legislations, by means of her aggressive organization and activism.  Her organization “The Eagle Forum” was a bastion of conservative family and moral issues and their political and legal defense, and a prototype for later conservative “family” organizations.  As a staunch religiously-conservative Roman Catholic and defender of traditional Christian family values and role models, she embraced Donald Trump as such a role model and his 2016 campaign (ironically her son was also eventually “outed” as a practicing homosexual).  Her work also promoted the conservative values of unbridled capitalism (aka the Social Darwinist credo of “each man for himself”) and privatization to corporate control of the public interest.  And true to these values of unregulated corporate behavior, Schlafly’s own beloved Eagle Forum organization was subject to some type of hostile takeover by members of her own board of directors, including her own daughter, shortly before her death in 2016.  The cited online reference from its Missouri branch wrote that “Word has come of a rogue board meeting and an upcoming hostile takeover of Eagle Forum’s board and its assets. Phyllis Schlafly’s endorsement of Trump is a likely catalyst. But you can be sure the real objective is to control the Eagle Forum bank accounts and that the Gang of 6 will present a carefully crafted excuse for public consumption”.  She told World Net Daily that the coup was real and that “this may be my Dobson moment (when the board of Focus on the Family similarly forced founder James Dobson out), was based upon her endorsement of Trump, and was led by her own daughter.

Her son, Andrew Schlafly, is a “chip of the old block” who has forged his own conservative venues, such as his online resource “Conservapedia”, which is intended to be a Wikipedia-like information source with only conservative-approved information.  A brilliant person himself with an engineering degree from Princeton and a doctorate from Harvard Law School, he founded Conservapedia in 2006 when he was alarmed to read a student assignment (as a homeschool teacher) using the now-accepted Common Era (C.E.) historical dating nomenclature, versus the Anno Domini (A.D.) earlier tradition.  Schlafly objectively explains on the “About” page on his Conservapedia site that “Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth.  We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here.  Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike”.   He adds that “We have received over 500 million page views!”, and notes that “A conservative approach to education is powerful and helpful in many ways. It equips students and adults to overcome inevitable obstacles, such as addiction and depression…There are few, if any, conservative schools…The truth shall set you free..No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths.”

To get a feel of the type of narrative and perspective provided on Conservapedia, a look at its front page on February 21, 2017 notes that its “popular articles” include those on “global warming”, “feminism”, “homeschooling”, “evolution”, “liberal claptrap”, “hollywood values”, “biblical scientific foreknowledge”, “Donald Trump”, “free market”, “George Patton”, “Globalism”, “Conservapedia proven right”, “Ex-homosexuals”, “Battle of Thermopylae”, “greatest conservative songs”, “counterexamples to relativity”, “liberal bias”, “liberal style”, “Chuck Norris”, “bias in Wikipedia”, “Mystery: Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?”, “Barack Hussein Obama” and “Professor Values”, to name a few.  It also features a late-breaking “In the News” segment, with story titles such as “White House Signals Reversal in Transgender Bathroom Policy, overturning another Leftist policy by Obama”, “Trump was Right: Riots Break Out in Rinkeby, Sweden”, “Conservapedia Proven Right, Again”, “More fake news by the lamestream media”, and “Melania Trump Recites the Lord’s Prayer at Melbourne Rally – CROWD GOES WILD!”, and many other such reference citations for academics and researchers.

Regarding its rival Wikipedia, its Conservapedia page dedicated to it notes that “Most of Wikipedia’s articles can be edited publicly by both registered and anonymous editors, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.  As such it tends to project a liberal – and, in some cases, even socialist, Communist, and Nazi-sympathizing-worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality” (emphasis added).  It notes that Wikipedia founders Jimbo Wales and “atheist philosophy professor Larry Sanger’ are both atheists, and that “its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths and falsehoods”, quoting World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah as saying that Wikipedia “is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias.  It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever seen”.  It does fairly point out that “Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics”, but smacks of that “systemic liberal bias that dominates Wikipedia”.  They also perceptively point out that “the ‘hammer and sickle’ of the leftist ideology which murdered millions in the former Soviet Union – is featured prominently on the instruction page as well as the tags that mark each uploaded image”.  They are also known at Conservapedia for taking a strong stand against what they perceive to be one of the greatest threats to political conservatism – Einstein’s general theory of relativity in physics.  Their page on the “theory of relativity” begins by warning that “The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory”, and its article titles within this topic comprise those such as “Lack of Evidence for Relativity”, and “Experiments that Fail To Prove Relativity”.  They note that “Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities”.  They add that “some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas…Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common”.   The article is associated at its conclusion with other wiki topics, such as “Liberal pseudoscience”, which includes “Black holes”, dark matter” and “moral relativism”.  On the dedicated Conservapedia page “Counterexamples to Relativity”, they begin by noting that “The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but it promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible”.  This leads the prominent scientific magazine New Scientist to state, “In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work.  Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the issue by misusing the term ‘relativity’.  The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think”.

Conservapedia does provide some pages with useful definitions of popular political terms today we can use for this post.  In their page on the topic “Liberal”, emblazoned with a picture of “Barack Hussein Obama” and stated to be the ‘least successful president in history”, states at the beginning that “A liberal is someone who craves an increase in government spending, power, and control, such as Obamacare.  Liberals also support the censorship and denial of Christianity.  Liberals who are a part of the secular left prefer the atheist religion over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans”.  They add that “Liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working”, and that “All liberals support, in knee-jerk fashion, the oppositive of conservative principles, while lacking an actual ideology or values of their own.  Many of them cannot understand Christian language”.  They are also known for (a) “Denial of science (especially creation science)”, (b) “Hypocrisy”, (c) “The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists’ hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy”, (d) “Hedonism”, (e) “Rejection of Biblical standards”, (f) “Hatred”, (g) “Murder”, (h) “crying instead of accepting reality”, (i) “Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms”, (h) “tyranny”, (i) “Treason”, (j) “pseudo-intellectualism”, (k) “genocide”, (l) “fascism”, (m) “Destroying conservative family values and replacing them with immoral Hollywood values”, (n) “High progressive taxes as a form of class warfare against wealthy business owners”, (o) “Sadism”, (p) “racism”, (q) “slander”, (r) “Obesity”, (s) “environmentalism”, (t) pedophilia”, (u) “mutilating corpses”, (v) “enforced homosexuality”, and many more unsavory attributes.  They add that, “In practical usage, the term ‘liberal’ is more closely synonymous with ‘radical’, ‘immoral’, ‘anti-freedom’, ‘elitist’, or ‘bad'”.  Their list of ‘Notable liberal ‘intellects'” includes “Barack Hussein Obama”, “Dracula”, “David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA”, “Adolf Hitler”, “Karl Marx’, “Lee Harvey Oswald”, “Benito Mussolini”, “Margaret Thatcher” (for decriminalizing homosexuality), and “Osama Bin Laden”.  Their list of “Liberal Organizations” included AARP, AFL-CIO and others.

It also has a page dedicated to “Conservatism”. On it, it notes that “A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all.  A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else.  A conservative favors conserving value by not giving handouts to anyone who does not really need them”.  Regarding their “goals and principles”, they note that conservatives seek or support “capitalism and free markets”, “classroom prayer”, “the concept of retribution for crimes, including the death penalty for heinous murders proven beyond reasonable doubt”, “family values, including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household” (emphasis added), “The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms”, “Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)”, “Private medical care and retirement plans”, “cancelling failed social support programs”, “enforcement of current laws regarding immigration”, “respect for our military – past and present”, “rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming”, “a strong national defense”, “A dedication to the truth, and an ability to seek it”, and “ending entitlement programs”, amongst others.

The contribution Schlafly and Conservapedia is most known for is their origination of the “Conservative Bible” translation.  The Conservapedia page on the “Conservative Bible Project”  notes that its goal is to “render God’s word into modern English without archaic language and liberal translation distortions”.  They add that the first draft of the Conservative New Testament was completed on April 23, 2010, and many of the Old Testament books are completed as well.  It adds that “Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations”, and that “the third – and largest – source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate”.  It notes that “As of 2009, there was no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines”, including “Framework against Liberal Bias”, “Not Emasculated”, “Combat Harmful Addiction”, “Express Free Market Parables” (“explaining the numerous economic parables in their full free-market meaning”), “Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness”, and “Exclude Later-inserted Inauthentic Passages” (i.e., “excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story”).  It notes that the “benefits” of the new Conservative Bible include “benefitting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses”, “political issues can become a pathway to evangelizing liberals”, and “this project has a unifying effect on various Christian denominations, and serves as an important counterweight to liberal efforts to divide conservative candidates based on religion”.  Some of the “Helpful Approaches” that are cited from the Conservative Bible include to “identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as ‘government’, and suggest more accurate substitutes”, and “identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations”. They add that “Many consider the Conservative Bible project, as well as any other Bible translation projects, to be heretical and in opposition to Matthew 5:18, which was fulfilled in the King James Bible”.  They use as examples of censored Bible passages in the Conservative Bible such as Luke 23:34, “Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing'” (adding that, “Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals without regard to its authenticity?”, since “This quotation is a favorite of liberals”), as well as Luke 16:8, where they change the “shrewd” manager of Christ’s parable to “resourceful”.  Amongst the “Advantages to a Conservative Bible” they list include “liberal bias – and lack of authenticity – becomes easier to recognize and address”, “supported by conservative principles, the project can be bolder in uprooting and excluding liberal distortions”, “the ensuing debate would flesh out – and stop – the infiltration of churches by liberals/atheists pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals”, “this would bring the Bible to a new audience of political types, for their benefit; Bible courses in college Politics Departments would be welcome”, and “this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today”.

As example of the improvements provided by the Conservative Bible, in the Sermon on the Mount on Matthew 5 it says Jesus “began His Torah” instead of “He opened His mouth”, and states “Blessed are those who are not full of themselves” rather than “Blessed are the poor in spirit”.  In 2009 Stephen Colbert interviewed Schlafly about his Conservative Bible on his “Colbert Report” show .  There he states that Jesus’ parables were “free market parables”.  Salon Magazine actually listed verses from the Conservative Bible, where the term “Pharisees” has been changed to “liberals”, so that Mark 3:6 reads, “The Liberals then fled from the scene to plot with Herod’s people against Jesus, and plan how they might destroy Him”, and in Mark 10:23-25. they change Christ’s words “for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” to “for an idle miser to enter into the kingdom of God”.

Political conservatism is inextricably intertwined with most of American evangelicalism like a Gordian Knot, with Biblical passages and theological doctrine and the aforementioned conservative principles irrevocably linked, and not challenged or critiqued by the Bible text itself in polite company, at the risk of alienating oneself under the most dire charges of heresy – being a liberal.   As an example of its ubiquitousness, a look at the “Ten Liberty University Distinctives” by founder Jerry Falwell on what is arguably the world’s most influential evangelical university’s website in 2015 notes that one is “An uncompromising doctrinal statement, based upon an inerrant Bible, a Christian worldview beginning with belief in biblical Creationism, an eschatological belief in the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational coming of Christ for all of His Church, dedication to world evangelization, an absolute repudiation of “political correctness,” a strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and firm support for America’s economic system of free enterprise” (emphasis added) – a political and economic indoctrination paid for in large sums by parents (or vast student loans) to provide their children a life-influencing “Christian education”.  This may be why their website also notes that amongst their awards are being in the Top 10 of Newsmax‘s “40 Conservative Colleges” and number 5 on another list of “the 20 Best Conservative Colleges in America”, while being the fifth largest university in the nation.  Sometimes it requires that they stifle independent thought and free speech by their own students (presumably there to obtain an education to thus acquire such skills), in widely reported incidents such as in which the university banned the College Democrats in 2009, or in late 2016 when a writer at the university newspaper was banned from writing about Donald Trump’s sexual assault conversation with Billy Bush (University leader Jerry Falwell Jr. had already publicly endorsed Trump), apparently blocked by Falwell himself.  Sometimes they just block the online version of the local newspaper on the university computer servers, to block students from reading unsavory reports about the university’s corruption or hypocritical actions.

As is typical for this blog, the preceding long-winded expository narrative was a mere preamble for the actual point of the post itself.  Inspired by these previous references and in their general spirit, I thought I might take a shot at proposing a handful of some of the more memorable “Conservative Role Models” in the Bible itself, since the purpose of the Bible itself is to undergird and give spiritual, divine sanction to politically conservative principles both we and it hold dear.

The remainder of this post will only focus on core conservative economic principles, as embodied in the following well-known Biblical characters:

 

The “Rich Man” Who Interacted with Lazarus:  In this parable of Christ in Luke 16, a “certain rich man” was said to be “clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day” – evidently an entrepreneur and “risk taker” who was rewarded for his genius with prosperity, apparently by God Himself, and therefore worthy of our respect by his apparent success, as well as his culture and fine taste, and a role model for enterprising young Christians.  Unfortunately, he was plagued by a liberal welfare deadbeat (i.e. ‘beggar”) named Lazarus (whose name means, “whom God helps’), who used the excuse of his medical condition of body-wide sores (why doesn’t he pay to see a good doctor?) to ask for handouts, rather than earn an honest living.  The rich man knew that if he provided to Lazarus any more than what fell to the floor (a form of “trickle down Reaganomics”), (a) he would never get rid of him, and (b) Lazarus would never “pull himself up by his bootstraps”.  The blessed rich man wanted to demonstrate adherence to the conservative Biblical values of hard work and responsibility.  He did permit Lazarus an alternative to wasteful universal health coverage – he let the dogs lick Lazarus’ sores.  Accordingly, when the rich man died, he went to his proper eternal reward as God decreed.  Curiously, in the afterlife he found himself to be a helpless eternal “welfare deadbeat”, as the tables turned and he begged to Lazarus for relief.  Maybe this is why the “poor in spirit” will inherit the Kingdom, and why it is so hard for the rich to enter it.  The eternal principles the rich man then learned were said by Abraham to reside in the teachings of Moses and the prophets, and if people would not embrace them, then even one returning from the dead (such as Jesus Himself) could not persuade them otherwise.

King Ahab (acquirer of Naboth’s vineyard) and the King (acquirer of the “perfect” lamb):  In 1 Kings 21 Ahab used his power and prestige to impress upon Naboth to sell or trade his vineyard, because of its proximity to the palace, as a type of “eminent domain”, even though Naboth legally owned it.  Ahab knew the “art of the deal” many Christians so admire today in the wealthy businessmen and traders who are invited to their pulpits as guests; he exhibited the success drive and “killer instinct” to be diligent, even obsessive, in getting what he wanted, and in not taking “no” for an answer.  Most powerful men have a more powerful and cunning wife behind them, and Ahab was no exception; she forged letters in his name after notifying him that she would obtain Naboth’s property with “an offer he couldn’t refuse”, setting him up in a legal blackmail scheme that led to his death, and Ahab’s possession of his property at Jezebel’s command as a result.  In the Social Darwinistic “survival of the fittest” trait of economic conservativism, what they did was “fair game”, using power and economic clout (even paying the stooges and lawyers) to obtain from the less well-connected by force, in “free and open markets” unfettered by regulations and restrictions.  Naboth was a fool for valuing the legacy of his descendents who gave him the land for an inheritance to future generations, and “not a good businessman” which would have earned Christian respect.  In response God sent His prophet Elijah (whom Ahab called “his enemy”) to tell Ahab what he thought of his economic philosophy, and his ultimate destiny.  Similarly, in 2 Samuel 12 the prophet Nathan told King David about a rich man and a poor man, the latter having a little ewe lamb he had raised, who ate and drank from the man’s table, and was like a daughter to him (v. 3), whereas the rich man had vast flocks and herds. When the rich man wanted to impress a visitor, he did not take from his own large supply, but rather took the lone lamb of the man, and fed it to his guest.  David sought revenge because the rich man had no “pity”, but it in fact it was about his own actions with Bathsheba.  However, in conservative free market capitalism, the inevitable destiny is that almost all a society’s assets will be owned by an ever smaller circle of elites, who can leverage their wealth and influence to extract more and more.  Today the top fraction of one percent own something like half of the total wealth in America, and that upper tier is getting more elite every decade – a top political platform of that “socialist” Bernie Sanders (a man himself on the outside looking in, unlike the other political candidates).  Trump’s tax plan he proposed in his campaign would raise tax rates on the poorest tax bracket, and eliminate their credits for their children, while dropping the 39.6 and other wealthiest tax rates to 25 percent, and corporate taxes down to 15 percent (who else do you think will pick up the tax revenue slack?).  This trend in wealth concentration, if unabated by conservative calls for lesser banking and financial regulation, will become an eventual a tipping point like the French Revolution, when the masses had nothing to lose, and then everyone (including the rich) will lose.

The Ambitious Barn Builders and Wealth Retainers:  Churches extol the virtues of visionary businessmen, including those who wear clerical robes and build massive “world ministry centers” with private jets and opulent campuses, and are ever-expanding and upgrading, as role models to emulate of “the American Way”.   In Luke 12 a ‘rich man” was so blessed by his farms (obviously due to God’s grace) that he decided to tear down his perfectly good barns to build yet bigger ones, to “bestow my fruits and my goods” for public admiration, rather than sharing with others.  God was not so impressed with such displays of wealth and security, although he would have been viewed as a “model of free enterprise and investment” and to have filled his time “productively”, rather than in others’ lives.   The Conservative Bible changes how the church in Acts shared all they had sold to give to the Apostles, to being “generous with those in need”, so as to avoid allusions to socialism or communism.  A couple who embodied this change was Ananias and Sapphira.  In Acts 10 they admirably sold a possession, but kept part of it, and laid the rest at the apostles’ feet.  While many such religious leaders today toil in their ministry under modest means and with dignity, many other conspicuous examples reveal opulent lifestyles and asset accumulations from the “widow’s mites” given to their “ministries”.  A biographical book about the Rev. Billy Graham entitled Prince of War noted that by 2004 the Billy Graham Evangelical Association’s annual income was 110 million dollars, with 271 million in assets, while Graham’s annual compensation exceeded $500,000 a year, while telling radio listeners the Garden of Eden was a place “with no union dues, no labor leader, no snakes, no diseases” and saying that no Christian laborer would take advantage of his employer by aligning with a union.  Various sources list the net personal worth of the almost centarian-aged Billy Graham at over $25 million, up with the most successful prosperity gospel preachers – what will he do with “all of this in his barns” at his age?  His son Franklin, a one-time rebel who avoided the ministry, has done even better; the Charlotte Observer – the bane of the Graham family – reported in 2015 that Franklin Graham made more than $620,000 in salary from Samaritan’s Purse – that’s a quite a haircut off the top of the “widow’s mites” donated by poor Christians, and means a lot more kids will grow hungry today that could otherwise be fed at a dollar a day – which also makes him the highest paid CEO of any international relief agency, even more than the CEO of the American Red Cross.  They add that his total compensation from Purse was $880,000 plus another $258,000 for working full-time for the Billy Graham Evangelical Association.  To be fair, this is far less than the $1.2 million he received in 2008.  Is it any wonder that these religious leaders hang out with high roller businessmen and Wall Street bankers, and guys like Donald Trump, with whom they can so identify?  People love a “winner” and particularly a conspicuous one – that is why the Pharisees publicly gave their money at the temple to great adulation and respect, while the widow’s mite was the greater portion of her essential resources, which only caught the Lord’s eye; we make much ado over rich Americans who give a small portion of their excess to a charity of their choosing to assuage their conscience and take on a pious stature with the public, not considering the treacherous ways in which much of this money was accumulated, as they put their names on buildings and hospitals; meanwhile having contempt for the poor who give a lesser amount monetarily to the public good by taxation and otherwise, but actually a larger share of their own minimal means, as Christians bemoan the high tax rates of the idle rich, who have numerous tax schemes to avoid their expected proportion of taxes anyway.  This environment is why a rich young ruler could live a very pious life and seek to follow the Lord, and only be inhibited by his “higher” calling to wealth and its prestige.

The Ultimate Manifestation of Capitalism – The Rider on the Black Horse and The Great City Babylon.  In Revelation 6 we see a rider on a black horse (as in being “in the black” financially) who controlled the global exchange rates of critical assets with a balance in his hand, announcing the cost of essential foodstuffs, while protecting oil (the Greek suggests the type that is used for fuel) and the luxurious items such as wine, which would be “untouched” and protected for the wealthy elites.  History has shown that physical weapons are not the most powerful methods of control – the control of wealth and money and raw materials is.  The Knights Templar arose out of nowhere to be Europe’s bankers (as “pious soldiers of Christ”) with sudden power that rivaled kings and the Pope, and could bring any of them to their knees by the control of capital as premier capitalists, soon to be followed by the Jewish House of Rothchild, House of Morgan, Rockefeller and others.  Even Joseph found out that by confiscating and then controlling for the State the only commodity of value in a world of famine -food – it could be used to confiscate all the wealth, and even freedom of the subjects of Pharoah.  In Revelation 18 we see it globalized institutionally in the Great City Babylon, where “the merchants of the earth have waxed rich” and “the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her” – i.e., pursued their mutual interests with the global financial cartel rather than being faithful to the interests of their own citizens.  It’s Social Darwinistic attribute derived from capitalism has them dispassionately yet immorally trading in all goods of value, even the souls of men as mere possessions of labor.  Good conservatives today (and most American Christians) also see little value in the dignity of the laborer, disfavoring minimum wage laws, a living wage, labor rights and jobs programs, as being “bad for business” and corporate profits, as the Christians are the ones who put in office a political party that clearly rather answers to the Wall Street bankers and corporations who finance it (when have you seen them aggressively fight Roe V. Wade in their 28 years since in power, although they campaign so heavily on it, for example?).  Christians have swallowed one of the biggest conservative “whoppers” of the last century – that more money for the rich in reduced taxes and corporate welfare and government contracts and inducements will actually help the poor and middle class, followed only by the promise that the reduction in inheritance and other corporate taxes are for the “small family business”, or that it will produce “more jobs”.  We now have a President largely elected by Christians to look out for the “little guy” as he promised, who has staffed all his cabinet positions with oil company CEOs, and billionaire and millionaire Wall Street hedge fund executives.  Christians are dazzled by their robber barons and tycoons just as Jerry Falwell Jr. was when getting to sit in Donald Trump’s airplane, but evidently God is not as nearly impressed, and will see to it that this system of exploitation will not prevail – that of the “Golden Rule”, or “He who has the gold makes the rules”.  The passage says to God’s people to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (v. 4).  The question is – will America’s Christians listen?

That’s enough examples for now – let us know further examples in this vein.  The next part will include good conservative Biblical examples of patriotic nationalism, exceptionalism, and a “strong Judeo-Christian nation” that “projects force globally” as a “global leader”.

[NOTE: Please link this and other posts to Facebook, other social media and in emails, to invite either widespread denouncements, praise or enlightenments in a wider circle – all of which are encouraged – and at least some food for thought and a good conversation piece.]

 

 

 

Did America Just Elect Negan?

neegan

I mentioned in my last post that it was probably ill-advised, but that due to rhetoric I had heard from Christians close to me, I could not be silent, and rather focus on more long-term productive tasks like finishing my last book manuscript.  I posted anyway, and spent a good bit of time mentioning thoughts to consider, and aspects of Trump’s character and actions that would be good for Christians to ponder further.  If you have read it and the comments thereafter, you saw that my points were controversial for some, like most of my posts (it would have been even more controversial if it had been circulated within the greater Christian community, and not just the very special readers of this site).

However, as with many posts I have made (and as a foreboding of the expected response to my books to be imminently released), some of my points were evidently misunderstood, accidentally by many, and maybe intentionally by some.  First of all, let me make it again clear for doubters that my last post (nor this one) was an intention to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.  I did vote Tuesday as a civic duty, but I did not vote for her or Donald Trump, because they did not meet my standards for trustworthiness, character, wisdom or mercy, as a Christian and humanitarian (I did not try to whitewash their limitations and vices in Christian “double talk” either).  I also did not mean to insinuate who I thought would win – after the shocking Brexit vote, I knew that polls were not a reliable indicator).  The real reason of my post, as I tried to explain, was my primary concern about how the Christian Right leaders and their followers re-packaged Trump as a pious Christian example, and visionary spiritual leader and messianic figure to “deliver us from evils” as sent by God, and how this rationalizing “spin” behavior will impact the long-term mission of Christians in America in their appointed tasks for the Kingdom of Heaven.  In fact, that is the motive of almost all my posts, and my books – how our thoughts, attitudes, words and actions of us as self-proclaimed “representatives of God” impact our eternal heavenly mission and “ministry of reconciliation”, particularly in our frequent quests to obtain transient advantages in power and influence in carnal matters for our own selfish interests and in spite of the “Kingdom fo Heaven” standards, which emphasize the Golden Rule and loving your neighbor and enemies.  I may overgeneralize at times (or be perceived as such by those who do not read my posts carefully), but for these objectives I do not apologize.  I also did not add a lot of references and linked citations in my last post (as I said I wouldn’t, as I haven’t in other posts as well), because it is very time consuming to do so (and I really need to focus on book writing), and I felt the recent events cited were fresh enough that people should be aware of them (although I shudder to think how many of my Christian colleagues do not read a wide array of news sources outside of talk radio, Facebook and one or two partisan sites).  I expect that some people may be in disbelief in many of the assertions and data I cite, and thus why I do cite extensively in my permanent writings. Some readers here may be unaware of the data I cite, and other commenters here try to seed doubt and accuse me of inventing facts, when they merely could confirm them with a one minute Google search.  Thus, for this post I will take the extra time to cite online linked references for the actions and quotations I cite, which I think will be embolded in the text for you to click on them, if you desire.

Anyway, on to the subject of my post today.  I felt like I had wasted enough time on my last post which probably did little contructive good, and certainly had no intention to go “double or nothing” and post again after the election.  However, I had an idea this morning just as I was getting up.  Most of you are familiar with (or are watchers) of what has evidently become the most-watched television program in the history of television, and a bona fide cultural phenomenon, called The Walking Dead.  Not only is it the only television show that I think is well-written enough to warrant my time, but it is very “non-Hollywood” in that it does not focus on Millennial angst, or beautiful youths hopping into bed with each other, or elite upper-class folk swapping spouses (in which I just described most other shows on TV today).  I see it rather as a modern day “Western”, filmed in rural Goergia and not Hollywood, in which a sheriff and a rag tag “klan” of his family, those he loves and his new-found brethren try to survive in a lawless society, where the greatest threat is not the zombie “walkers” (their version of the Apache “savages” in the wasteland), but rather the other survivor groups of dubious nature and purposes.  Even the weekly talk show Talking Dead after each episode leads an interesting public debate with a variety of people on set and callers as to the ethics of the actions of these people under dire circumstances – a discussion that is warranted for television.

The recurring theme of the show is the attempt of this group, under non-stop duress and no-win circumstances, to maintain their own humanity and mercy, in a merciless age and environment – a goal at which some times they acomplish better than others.  They have generally and consistently taken risks to the group’s well-being to rescue one or two of the group to leave “no child behind”, and have struggled to take risks to incorporate new people into their fold (sometimes causing them to realize new dangers and be betrayed, and sometimes to fail to accept them, all over much debate and soul searching).  However, a main portion of the conflict durng the seven seasons is over their encounter with groups who have sacrificed their humanity, for the sake of survival, and the risks it poses to them.  They have survived a mentally twisted Governor and his idyllic community, and a group at Terminus who were broken by other savages and now resort to the worst taboos against others.  Others were purely depraved like the Wolves.  However, this current season, which is breaking all TV viewing records, concerns their deadliest foe yet – the brutal yet pragmatic “Negan” and his mercenary group “The Saviors”.  The picture above shows Negan towering over the the star Sheriff Rick Grimes’ group as Negan and his men have terrorized and then captured them, forcing them on bended knee before him as he taunts them.  Shortly thereafter, he executed (pun intended) the acts which have become most famous in the series – brutally and mercilessly bashing in the brains of two beloved members of their group with his famous barbbed wire-lined bat called “Lucille”, they having been chosen randomly to “teach them all a lesson” not to resist (a “message” which broke them to the point of capitulation).

In the few weeks since this episode aired, we have observed and learned more about Negan and his group.  This morning I sudenly realized the similarity between Negan and his “operation”, and that of Donald Trump and his supporters and followers to “make America Great Again”.  Follow me as I give a few examples of their natures and similarities, and a few citations to both confirm and archive these actions:

NEGAN – Negan is a charismatic figure with wit, a sense of irony, supreme self-confience and focus on “winning” over others, wrapped up in a “swagger” that attracts followers more than repulses them (at least many types of people), not being burdened by propriety or political correctness, or even the Golden Rule.

TRUMP –  I need no citations to make this comparson clear to most readers.  This last description is the best way to describe Trump’s life and image, both historically and during the campaign.  “Winning” was a major and recurring theme of Trump’s campaign, as well as his books (which have been ghostwritten by others), Trump University, etc.  Trump can evidently “charm the socks off a rooster” with most of the public, who are dazzled by his swagger, bravado, boasting comments, conspicuous opulence and self-absorption (which is why he may have close affinity to evangelical leaders who can do the same to them as well).

NEGAN:  One can see that Negan has attracted brutes, bullies, ruffians and “hot heads” to his gang, who like to threaten others as much as he does.  He has encouraged them to beat up outsiders brutally, not wanting to have all the “fun” himself.  This includes group member Darryl (on two occasions), and other people as they are captured or encountered on the road.

TRUMP:  One needs to only watch the Trump rallies closely to see many of the same crowd in their functions.  He bragged on televised addresses over his early victories that polls showed he leads in support amongst the “poorly educated” saying, “I love the poorly educated!”.  After the election, pollsters showed that he led in those without college degrees nor college-educated.  Certainly there is nothing sacred or noble about a college degree, and if it makes one smug or elitist it is a detriment, but it is clear that Trump has focused his message on those with limited tools of discernment, and the many televised interviews with Trump supportors have shown them largely (but not totally) motivated by emotions or anger, or simplistic views of problems.  More disturbingly, Trump has been shown encouraging rally members to be physically violent with protesters at his rallies.  He has told rally attendees on camera to “knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”; in others, he has said, ““I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya,” to a protester.  Attendees at these events have been shown punching or roughing up protesters at the events or Muslim women reporters ; elsewhere, the cited erefence notes that “a 78-year-old white male audience member at a Trump rally in North Carolina was videotaped sucker-punching a black protester being escorted from the event by police. The man, John McGraw, was later charged with assault and battery. But it was the protester who ended up in handcuffs at the rally”.  Many more such exmaples could be listed, but do you get the point?  Is this how things looked at Nazi rallies in the 1920s, when his SA goons grabbed protesters of other political views who were then drug out of those halls and worked over?

NEGAN:  Negan believes in using terror, or the fear of terror, to control people as a “force multiplier”, to keep not only outsiders but even his own people in line, and not challenge him as a single man with a bat who mentally controls many.  His barbaric barbed-wire-lined bat, dripping with blood, he uses phallicly toward others, directly in their face, to breed their fears and to dehumanize them.  When Sheriff Rick initially offered some resistance, Negan countered by forcing him to amputate his own son’s hand (to the point of committing the act).  Others in his own group who did not meet his demands he disfigured on their face with a hot iron.  Even more heinous means were in his toolbelt, to get what he wanted from others.

TRUMP: Trump has clearly gone on the record that he not only wants to bring the torture protocols back for detainees, but also make them even worse.  When a suspect was captured from the recent Paris terror attacks, Trum said on his Twitter that he would have talked “a lot faster with the torture”.   Trump has been far more explicit; he said on a New Hampshire television interview that “we’re going to have to get much tougher as a country. We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost.”  In the televised New Hamphire primary, he stated, ” I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” On Feb. 17, he publicly said, ” Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding”, and on July 27  he said, “I am a person that believes in enhanced interrogation, yes. And by the way, it works.”  At a recent rally, he said regarding torture you have to “fight fire with fire”, and added, “What do you think about waterboarding?” Trump asked the crowd. They cheered as he gave his answer: “I like it a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.”  These are but a few examples.

NEGAN:  Negan has no compassion for “outsiders” outside his “klan”, unless he can exploit them for his purposes.  Regardless, he has no mercy on them or see them as fellow human beings.  They also will be kept out and away from the benefits of his society unless they can offer more in return.

TRUMP:  The hallmark of Trump’s campaign was to exlcude and eliminate “undesirables”.  At a press conference he held on December 7, 2015, he read an official statement that said, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering in the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on…we have no choice…it is going to get worse, you’re going ot have more World Trade Centers…we can be politically correct and we can be stupid…folks, those days are over, we have to be tough…yes we will look at mosques”.  This view is not only that of Trump’s – it’s that of his “klan” coast to coast.  A June 2016 Reuters poll showed that 50% of all Americans said that there should be a temporary ban of all Muslim immigrants to the U.S.  CBS News reported in July 2015 that Donald Trump followed up his early campaign pronouncements (as in his early debate appearances) with the assertion that the U.S. was becoming a ‘dumping ground” of outsiders with the world’s problems, and reiterated his position in a CNN interview.  He stated that the Mexican government was sending people of which “they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”.  when the interviewer pointed out that the women Trump cited as being raped were victimized prior to entering the country, Trump replied, “Well, somebody’s doing the raping, Don. I mean, you know, somebody’s doing it. Who’s doing the raping?” – a phrase he reiterated during the campaign.  Alicia Machado, the woman he crowned Miss Universe (as Trump runs many beauty pageants), was told she was fat by Trump and fired, and as a Hispanic was called by him, “Miss Housekeeping”.  I am glad Trump was not able to force his immigration policies in ancient Israel – the world would have missed the contributions of Rahab, and the Moabitess Ruth – both famed ancestors of our Lord.  If the Philistines had had such a policy, they would not have generously accepted David and his followers as they were wanted men in Israel.  Of course, Trump himself imported his own wife as an immigrant from one of the U.S.’s recent Iron Curtain enemies – I wonder if he might send her back, as Ezra the priest did in sending all foreign women and children away to their death who had married Jewish men, to set a good example to the rest of us?

NEGAN: Negan’s fundamental policy was to take the spoils and resources of any outsiders he encountered as his own.  Sometimes he would let people in his spheres of control keep up to half, at his discretion, and would continue to take from them over time.  He also encouraged his loyal henchmen to help themselves to the goods of others as they desired.

TRUMP:  Trump has a similar policy; whereas before he had to use his access to capital, and to New York lawyers to enforce these provisions, he will now have the IRS, CIA and military to do the collecting for him.  While he did not think it was wise to invade Iraq (after originally supporting it), he did think it could be worthwhile if we confiscated the profitable oil from the very country which we ourselves had destroyed and impoverished (first by sanctions, and then by bombs).  The Atlantic noted that in August 2016, like many times before, Trump gave a speech in which he stated regarding our involvement in Iraq, “We should have kept the oil…I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen. I said: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil…In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils…Instead, all we got from Iraq—and our adventures in the Middle East—was death, destruction and tremendous financial loss.”  The Los Angeles Times added that “It also would have violated decades of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, as well as the United Nations mandate that authorized the invasion.”  I guess we now know that Trump also would not have come to the aid of the millions of victims in the Tutsi-Hutu conflict in Africa – there was no oil there to justify it, as America’s critics now feel justified in having pointed out over the decades.  Trump even declared that he would not honor America’s long treaty commitments to aid a fellow NATO member if attacked, unless they had paid significantly in advance.  In a July 2016 New York Times interview regarding helping NATO nations, Trump stated that “You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that..Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”, and in May 2016 also told the Wall Street Journal that when other NATO nations “don’t pay up, they’ve backed out of their obligations, then we no longer have an obligation to defend them.” (while they note that the only time the NATO provision has been enacted is when the other NATO nations came to the aid of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks).

 Trump thinks like a businessman, and makes decisions based upon the bottom line ledger – not morality, or mercy or civility.  He sees war as only another money-making operation, and would only pursue it in that context (and would stay out of those he did not deem monetarily profitable).  Trump also plans another way for he and his henchmen to clean up from others – this time their fellow Americans; in one of the few detailed plans Trump has produced, Trump’s published tax plan will adjust the tax brackets so that the rates on the most wealthy will come down considerably, while the lowest bracket of the poor will rise, and the lower middle class will be about the same.  By eliminating personal exemptions, low and middle-income families with many children will have their tax go up a good bit.  Currently, estates above $5.45 million are subject to inheritance tax regarding the fortunes passed on to offspring within rich family lines to prevent their need to work for generations; Trump will make sure that this tax on the ultra-wealthy will be eliminated.  He will also bring the tax brackets down for the largest corporations down (from 39.6% or so) to about the rate of the most poor in society (15%).  Will Trump’s own estate benefit from these rules?

NEGAN:  Unless you are one of his “elite” henchmen, residents at Negan’s ‘Sanctuary” have to earn “points” to gain their basis necessities he has confiscated from them.  In the case of one of his henchmen on the show, this includes access to fundemental health care needs such as critical medical drugs.  In contrast, Sheriff Rick’s group provided medicine freely to anyone in his group who showed a need for it, and they would often risk their lives to obtain it, such as an intubator for his son Carl, or emergency medical care for a sick pregnant member.

TRUMP:  Trump prefers Negan’s approach to health care, by abolishing Obamacare, which provided basic health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions who could not get coverage as “bad investments” to the insurance companies, and making sure they had access to catatrophic care so the banks could not later wipe them out;  Trump sees “no money” in covering these people, and will leave them to their own fate.

NEGAN:  Negan has been shown to sneer and mock the weak and wounded, including those whom he has just beaned with his bat and look “real messed up”, and otherwise are a “mess” because of their suffering and misfortune.

TRUMP: Trump shares a similar view.  He is famous for recently mocking a disabled reporter investigating his claims.  He unfortunately has a palsy-like neurological condition that causes limb contortions and tremors, to which Trump at the lectern began to impersonate with exaggerated limb shaking and facial contortions – behavior society deems unacceptable for teenaged boys, much less the Leader of the Free World.  Trump always outdoes himself – at the 2015 Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, Trump famously said of long-time tortured POW Senator John McCain, “He’s not a war hero…He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”  The citation adds, “Trump received four student deferments from military service between 1964 and 1968. In Ames, he told reporters another medical deferment he received after graduating was for a bone spur in his foot. When asked which foot, Trump told reporters to look up the records.”  A published survey showed that people felt that this was his most offensive comment (while noting that Trump claimed he did not know the reporter nor that he was disabled, while the reporter claimed that he and Trump had been on a first-name basis for many years), even more offensive then his statements that the “second amendment people” amongt his followers should take care of Hillary Clinton.

NEGAN:  Negan is famous for how he treats women.  He rates them based if they are “smokin’ hot” or not, and if he takes a shine to them, he forcibly taked them to be his concubine “wives”, thereby nullifying their lawful marriages to other men present.

TRUMP: Trump’s history is very similar, which American Christian supporters have amazingly excused.  An abbreviated list of some of his more famous past and recent comments about women include his assertion that debate moderator Megyn Kelly was menstruating during the debate to justify her fierce quesitoning of him (saying that “blood was coming out of her…whatever”), such as when she cited that it had been documented that”You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals”, to which he said it was only directed to Rosie O’Donnell. He said in a 1991 Eqsuire Magazine profile that “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”  He said that Arianna Huffington was “unattractive both inside and out”, and that a female New York Times reporter had “the face of a dog”.  Of a female contestant on his show The Apprentice, he said as she stooped in front of him, “It must be a pretty picture,” he said to her. “You dropping to your knees.”  He also tweeted that Bette Midler was “extremely unattractive”.  Of Hillary he said, “Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote,” Trump said in April. “The only thing she’s got going is the women’s card.”  He now uses former Fox News chief Roger Ailes, whom the network found was sexually harrassing women there, to be a chief advisor for him. He released an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz next to his own wife, and entitled it, ‘The images are worth a thousand words”.  On an Entertainment Tonight interview in 1992, he pointed out a 10 year old girl nearby, and said, “I am going to be dating her in ten years.  Can you believe it?”.  He not only called Miss Universe Alicia Machado “Miss Housekeeping”, he also publicly called her “Miss Piggy” and “an eating machine” (the New York Post also reported that Trump also arrived unannounced in his beauty pageant dressing rooms as the contestants were nude, making “creepy” comments to them (including 15 year old participants), and later saying on the radio to Howard Stern in 2005 that it was one of the “perks” of ownership, adding, ““I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed…No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…You know, they’re standing there with no clothes…And you see these incredible-looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”) .  Of course, the list also includes the video of him bragging to an interviewer (who has since lost his job with the Today Show) about his targeting of married women to initiate adulterous affairs, and grabbing women by their genitals and leading them around or forcing himself on them and getting away with it because he was a celebrity.  Another published list notes his assertion that people should not vote for primary rival Carly Fiorina because of her face, and that he said he’d really like to date his daughter Ivanka.  In 1992 in New York Magazine, he said of women that “You have to treat them like shit”.  When asked in 1993 about his reputation as a womanizer, he said, “Yes I have that image. I think women are beautiful –  I think certain women are more beautiful than others, to be perfectly honest – and it’s fortunate I don’t have to run for political office.”  Talking of one of his former wives, he said, “when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof.” Regarding prenuptual agreements for his wives, he said, ““There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else.”  He said that when he bought the Miss USA pageant, “I’m going to get the bathing suits to be smaller and the heels to be higher.”  Of his daughter Ivanka, he said, “”You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body.”, and adding on the TV show The View, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”  Trump said on Howard Stern’s radio show that he’s “been with women with extraordinarily bad breast jobs’ and ‘pancake tits’.  There are many more I could list.

NEGAN:  His followers have been corralled and maintained by a combination of privleges offered to them, and dreadful fears if they do not stay in line.  However, some of them are having doubts and are considering defection.

TRUMP: Trump similarly has made promises of insider influence to prominent evangelical Religious Right leaders and other conservatives whom he has portrayed as his spiritual advisors.  Others, like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Ted Cruz he has corralled after their original adamant refusal on grounds of principle, with threats of political disenfranchisement and blowback if they did not get in line. CBS election day exit polls found that of the “winner”, Donald Trump, 60% of voters said he was not honest or trustworthy, and 60% of voters said that Trump was not qualified for the office of the presidency, with even 25% of Trump voters saying he was unqualified (I guess motivated by their Hillary hatred exclusively).  NBC exit polls said that 60% of voters had an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton received almost a quarter of a million more votes than Trump (how would he have acted had he won the total vote count but lost the electoral collage in his “rigged system” mindset?), who himself secured less than half of the public’s votes.  When they all see that Trump now has no obligation on fulfilling any promises to these individuals and groups, now having obtained their support to accomplish his election objectives, will any of them then have the courage to defect and stand up to him?  When Trump has control of the CIA, FBI and IRS, will they dare speak up, given his history of petty reactionary harrassment?

A BIG Difference between them:

NEGAN: Negan came to power during a time of lawlessness and upheaval, in a society suddenly with “no rules”.  He somehow provides a measure of security, along with exploitation and brutality, that might be at least partially excused in his unique times and challenges.

 TRUMP:  In contrast, Trump came to prominence in a time of relative prosperity and peace in America, without any tangible civil wars or major unrest, or economic calamity.  America had built on almost two hundred years of racial and human rights progress. Public demographics were turning away from those interested in Trump’s xenophobic, paranoid demagoguery.  Now Trump has a majority in both chambers of Congress, and has no restraint on his excesses moving forward, much like Hitler when he assumed the Chancellory in 1933.  So how did he do it?  Exit polls show that Trump received 81 percent of the evangelical vote, while noting that 76% of evangelicals are Republican, making up one fifth of all voters, and a third of Republican voters.  The story of how he seduced most of Christ’s Body in America (and particularly its leadership), and what it reveals about their gullibility, lack of principle and respect for basic virtues and values, and lack of recognition of the true spiritual priorities of Christ Himself and for God’s people in assisting secular governments in the scope of responsiblilities God has given them, as distiguished from those of the church itself, and lack of basic common sense maturity much less maturity of the spiritual variety, is a story that requires much data to consider, and is beyond the scope of this post, but may be started to be discussed soon thereafter.  What this has revealed about the true mind of most of the American evangelical community, and how this will affect their mission in the future, is the far bigger story than who won this last election, in my view. 

The BIG question is – Trump has gotten his big objective and trophy, presumably, in being the most powerful man in the world and secured his place in world history, but what will be his true motivations and goals during his administration?  Using his life history as a guide, Trump would be first motivated by (a) what raises his prestige, respect, praise and overall “brand”, and (b) what will monetarily help him and his financial peers either now or down the road.  Regarding (b), the clear details of his proposed tax plan (which will likely fly relatively unscathed through a Republican-controlled Congress) will largely accomplish those goals for his checkbook and others; how he opens doors for big business via his foreign policy and stopping raises in the minimum wage or the requirement to provide health care to workers, for example, are other ways he can accomplish this objective.  Regarding (a), what else does he have to accomplish for his ego?  Wipe out ISIS?  Raise the gross national product?  Be popular enough to be able to be re-elected if he chooses?  Time will tell.

Most people who have had concerns about Trump recoginize that they really don’t know what he will do – could he be surprisingly statesman-like and visionary, or autocratic and cruel to minorities on the margins, as he has suggested?  Heal rifts with other cultures and nations, or bring us to war?  What did his behavior during the campaign, much less his history, suggest will happen?  Actually, his history of being an intimidating “tough guy” and using strong-armed tactics reveals that he usually doesn’t believe the nasty things he says, for once he has “won” – albeit in securing the business deal or contract, the court case, or even the court of public opinion – he then begins speaking kindly of those he has humiliated after he has defeated him, suggesting that he may not actually pursue the most severe, ugly and draconian policy approaches he sold to his followers in the campaign.  Even during this campaign, how many times has he warned people of the unsuitability and dangers of “Little Marco” Rubio, “Lying Ted” Cruz, and even “Crooked” Hillary, all of whom he has praised after he had disposed of them.  As another example, The Hill, Buzzfeed and others have reported that the New York Times possesses an audiotape and transcript from an off the record portion of their interview with Trump this year on his immigration plans, which attendees suggest or implied that he does not plan to actually follow through on the positions he sold to his followers, as evidence the Times will not release unless he approves, which led Sen. Ted Cruz to state that the tapes they have suggest that Trump “doesn’t believe what he’s saying on immigration.  That all of his promises to secure the borders are not real and if he’s president he doesn’t intend to do what he says…The New York Times apparently has this on tape…The voters deserve to know if he says something different when he’s talking to The New York Times then he does when he’s talking to the voters”, as a posiiton also echoed by Sen. Marco Rubio.  This tendency for Trump and his peers to make these serious and dramatic charges against others as traitors and criminals (including Hillary, whom he promised to lock up to her face in a debate, and now praises right after the election as a real patriot) leads us not to take seriously what any of them say; not only should we not get worked up over their allegations, but why do we not not get behind leaders who have a reputation for honesty and straight talk, even with policy differences, rather than who has the most charisma, bravado or macho image?  However, if he hesitates to pursue all these inquisitions against Mexicans, immigrants and Muslims to the severe degree he “sold”, it will certainly disappoint many Christians that counted on him to be the “strong man” and bringer of wrath.  I suspect that they will find that after he has secured their votes, the last thought on his mind will be how the Religious Right members he counted on for election consider his actions, or if he lives up to what they wanted him to be.    

In any case, beyond my verbose opinions, what I do know is that the Bible is clear that Christians are to pray for the blessing of their rulers.  We all have that obligation on behalf of Donald Trump by the command of our Saviour, that he could help fulfill the role of what national governments are to do to secure the well-being of its subjects on the issues God has assigned to them as evidenced by the words of the Lord through the prophets and apostles, to protect their citizens from outsiders, look out for the minority and vulnerable stranger, the poor, the widows and orphans, and provide honest and fair courts and marketplace for everyone, and particularly the poor.  I plan to do that duty in prayer for Trump; I wonder how many Christians have fulfilled that duty in sincerity for President Obama?  I also plan to still critique my own heart and values as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that of my brethren here; that is the right and productive thing to do, because “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17), and due to Paul’s admonition to the church itself that “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside” (1 Cor. 5:12-13).  While we are to be educated about the true nature of these exploitative politicans of every stripe to “be not deceived”, the real focus of judgment and self-assessment belongs to the Church in America itself, for and of itself, and who it needs to be in the midst of these issues.

The experience of this election process, and how I perceive the American church participated in it and how it revealed its values, reminds me of the words of the Greek philosopher Thucydides, in his famous writing History of Peloponnesian War, Book III, 3.82, as he saw demogogues emerge in his society on the advent of regional war – which may be what we will receive as a consequence of this age of demagoguery – when he observed:

“To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings.  What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.  Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense.  Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect…If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.”

 

 

 

Religious Right and Their Followers May Be Getting Their Bar Kokhba Political Leader

trumpchristian

 

This is a post I have tried to avoid writing for over a year.  I know it will alienate many more of what few friends and followers I still have.  I have also tried to focus on finishing the last of seven volumes of my Holy War Chronicles book series instead, but since I haven’t posted here in some time, I might as well get this off my chest, even though it may well result in fewer readers for my books.  I could drown the readers in historical and recent data and citations here, like I do in my book, but I’ll try to restrain that and get to the point, and let those skeptics read my books or do their own research for themselves.

There was a time when God’s people, the Jews in Judea, had a monumental choice to make, which had everlasting political and, more importantly, spiritual overtones.  Their pious religious leaders had turned them against a poor carpenter/preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth, who talked of “turning the other cheek”, “Loving your enemies”, and avoided talk of claiming a political kingdom by force, but rather focused on a “Kingdom of Heaven” in which the poor were the “insiders”, and the rich were not revered and pandered to, but rather had to emulate the humility of the poor to be a part.  He told His followers to “put their swords away”, because His Kingdom was not of of this world, “else My servants would fight”.  Rome graciously gave God’s people a choice – to spare either this weak but healing Jesus who comforted the religiously or socially outcast, or another “Jesus” – Jesus Barabbas – who was a patriotic military hero in rebellion, who wanted to “make Judea great again” and “take Judea back”, even though he was also known as a killer and criminal (with such Zealots often known to rob from their own people).  We know the choice these people made; from then forward the die was cast and their fate was sealed.

The Jews, like their Canaanite and Levantine neighbors, were a wall-building people, as their source of protection from the menace of undesirables outside their “exceptional” community.  However, it is curious to note that Biblical history suggests that their walls did little to make them safer.  When Assyria’s army came, it was the heavenly host that turned their army into panic, and the prophet of God commanded that they not be slaughtered, but fed – the banquet being a non-violent affair that led to a true safety for a generation, and the foreign army to which mercy was showed had no heart to return later.  These walls did not stop Nebuchadnezzar’s army when his hand was forced by their rebellion; they had forgotten their real security was in obeying God, who had protected them without fortifications in their desert wanderings.  Nehemiah’s walls, so lovingly celebrated by Christians today (though never mentioned by either Christ or the Apostles), did not stop the Greek army from conquering when the Jews embraced them initially as “saviors” (thus betraying their benevolent Persian overlords), nor the Roman army later.  However, this wall to keep out “unexceptional” outsiders did serve to trap the people of Judea inside their own walls by their own patriotic Zealot “saviors”, who initiated an ill-advised and hopeless rebellion against Rome, and in turn massacred and tortured their fellow Jews who wanted to leave the city, while plundering their own food stockpiles and other provisions during the siege, as the Zealots used the sacred Temple grounds as a military citadel, forcing the Romans to destroy it when they refused to surrender.

Having lost their beloved Temple and their autonomy did not stop the Jews from seeking a patriotic leader to again “make Judea great again”.  Their religious leaders had “advanced” via their form of Pharisee-led Rabbinic Judaism to elevate their religious leader Rabbi Akiva, still known today by Jews as more important to Judaism than Moses himself, as well as being more wise as of the things of God.  He proceeded to “anoint” a dashing military figure as “Bar Kokhba”, or “Star of Israel”, proclaiming him as the prophesied Messiah of Israel, and massaged some Old Testament passages to vaguely alude to it.  Kokhba did not exhibit the virtues one might find in Scripture; Jewish historical records show that he was cruel, even to his fellow people of his own faith, such as cutting off the fingers of all his soldiers, and confiscating the lands of his countrymen for his own wealth.  He famously said that the Jews did not need the help from God to win.  He did launch a cruel persecution and massace of Christians throughout the land.  While rousing the patriotic/religious fervor of his countrymen, he led an even more disastrous rebellion after three and a half years, as eventually he and Akiva were killed, along with over 580,000 of their own countrymen, as the Jews were then banned from the entire region of Jerusalem.  By this time the oriignal tenets of the Jewish faith were submerged, and the hopes of a “return of the Kingdom” under a conquering Messiah was all they clung to, with no thoughts repentance, lessons learned from their folly, or the actual will of God, whom they felt betrayed them.

I have written for some time, and express in far deeper discussions in my books, that the Religious Right in America today, whom I have been raised to admire as a good “church-goin’ boy”, has similarly lost their way, in their brew of Christianity, American-exceptionalism and conviction of national “divine destiny”, Aryan superiority over other cultures, hyper-militancy (Spartan-style) and a paranoid fear, hatred and contempt of those who are different and don’t share their views, and the need to use State power to quench or eradicate them, rather than the power of love and a godly example.  This trend goes back many generations, and even prior to our nation’s founding; in recent generations, such conservative Christians were the main standard bearers of the Cold War against the commies, thereby giving spiritual sanction to the illegal acts of the CIA and FBI (both internationally and domestically), and foreign wars under false pretences such as the Vietnam War.  Since the falling of the Berlin Wall took away that zeal (and the need for such huge defense budgets and contracts), they have seamlessly transitioned their external contempt to those of another culture and sphere of the world in the War on Terror, justifying an American police state and ridiculous security budget even though the primitive nomadic leaders with AK-47s pose no civilization-toppling power in America like Russia’s nuclear arsenal.  They have justified torture and unlawful detainment and redention, with secret military trials if any, as worthy of the “good guys” to protect our morally-superior way of life.

I have observed that most of them, including many people close to me, have flocked to Donald Trump as a kind of Bar-Kokhba “messiah”, to “make  America Great Again”.  I have marvelled to see him get away with saying almost anything, to the immediate defense of his followers, in particular Christian leaders.  Probably the most honest thing Trump has ever said is that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and he would not lose any of his supporters.  Sadly I think this is a kind of prophetic statement of how far America’s Christian community, or at least most of it, has descended into their abyss.  If anyone has taken the time to follow Trump prior to his candidacy, they will note that his life and actions have been one of total narcissism that many have called a long time ago as clinical in its severity (which does not have to be treated as long as you have enough money to buy friends, and scare away or silence critics), as a need to be seen as being the “greatest”, with the need for him to point it out for every building he has built, every house he owns or piece of furniture as ‘the greatest ever”, and for his coterie around him to acknowledge it as well.  In today’s campaign, he anoints himself as “the greatest job creator God ever made” (Henry Ford may protest this, in wherever he resides today), and will build the “greatest military”, the “greatest economy”, and the “greatest wall”, all without a single detailed plan.  We know about his attitudes toward women, which has been a lifestyle and not a recent nor long-past phenomenon.  He brags publicly on air about ditching wives when they hit 35 and are no longer useful, the lack of merits of flat-chested women, his perverted glee at getting to watch naked beauty pageant contestants dress back stage, his desire and skill at seducing married women into adulterous acts, and even his description of his own daughter’s physical attributes in sexual terms, as “someone he would date if he were not his daughter”.  He has gotten kudos from Christians for scapegoating the “others” as the source of America’s ills – a skill in “selling it” that would make Hitler proud – including all the “rapist” Mexicans, and the Muslims he kept saying he would ban from immigrating, with his reputation built on a physical “wall” that he thinks will not only effectively protect America, but “make it great again”.  He is seen as the hero of the common man, who evidently also do not do much reading (Trump has bragged publicly about being the choice of the “poorly educated”) – they would see that many of those “common men” he stiffed and did not pay for their hard work on his buildings, and the minorities he and his dad were fined for racially excluding in their buildings (his dad, the New York slumlord Fred Trump was notorious for this, leading one of his tenant victims – Woody Guthrie – to savage him in his songs).  One can see beyond his rhetoric how he would really take the cause of the common man, in his only detailed policy plan – his tax plan, which plans to reduce the tax rates of the highest tax brackets, and drop all corporate rates to a mere 15 percent.  Who do you think will take up the tax-paying slack in America?

Of course, all these things have endeared him to our wise and righteous examples amongst our Religous Right leaders, and in particular his biggest cheerleaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham and Dr. James Dobson.  And he has given them much to believe his sincerity – from his affirmation of his faith because he says he “takes the little cracker”, to his faith recitation of “two Corinthians” and how much it means to him, and his holding up his grandmother’s Bible to rapt, tear-stained Christian audiences.  Like Bar Kokhba, he has publicly said to Christian audiences that he has done nothing to ever ask God for forgiveness for.  The many Christian leaders who have crowded around him like groupies for influence and photo ops, including Dr. Dobson, have said that televangelist Paula White has led him to the Lord; she should understand him well, as an adulteress who had an affair with fellow evangelist-healer Benny Hinn until they were exposed.  Like Rabbi Akiva, they have worked hard to find Biblical references to herald his coming as messiah, many Christian leaders publicly calling him a “King David” or :King Cyrus” to justify his “rough edges” (to which I expect both men will some day hold such leaders to account for such character defamation of themselves).  They have hard-pounded home to the American Christian flock that they should not look at his character, how he speaks directly or acts, either over his life or even during the campaign – he has an exemption from any expectations of character or virtue.  It’s not that he’s just not a “holy joe” or a preacher; I don’t think he has any virtues at all to speak of, or even the bare minimum of a ne’er-do-well off the street in any culture, East or West, much less our choice amongst tens of millions to lead the ‘Free World”.

In recent years the Religious Right and their followers have had a similar crisis of what path to take, and who to follow, as they did in the streets of Jerusalem.  In the recent election, Ron Paul, a practicing Christian, veteran, only serious congressman to actually propose pro-life legislation, and faithful spouse to his wife for over fifty years, spoke to the almost exclusive evangelical audience at the South Caroline debate, and said that our foreign policy should follow Christ’s Golden Rule, to which he was roundly booed.  At the Values Voters Summit held by the Family Research Council , Christians there gave him the lowest “values” score, merely because he did not like war, and did not think that everyone who tried a marijuana cigarette should be in jail.  These days, like Kokhba they have a candidate whom they can really rally behind and admire.  They speak in defense of Trump regardless of his historic or recent actions or words, much like an abused spouse or a co-dependent of an alcoholic, in neither case helping the sick person, and in this case revealing more about their own character.  We have recently seen, in Trump’s own words, how he likes to “grab women by the p___y” and lead them around (I use this offensive term because most Christians don’t seem to think it is a big deal, evidently).  I think in this case, Trump is grabbing the Religious Right and their followers “by the p___y”, and derisively laughing all the way.  More importantly, he has shown (by his own statements) that he likes to target women in marriage covenant with others; in this case, he has the greatest prize – a Church in marriage to Christ, whom he has seduced away by his dirty talk, bravado and “charm”- not as if there were much resistance from them; they have repeatedly shown their tendency to go “a whoring” after patriotism and self-worth, the Darwinian emphasis on “might makes right” in their economics and gunboat diplomacy, and even their justification of slavery in years past.  I cannot speak for Christ, but I would noo be surprised if He is telling the leaders of the American Religious Right and their followers to “weep for their children” in the days ahead, and it won’t be for the reasons they hear on talk radio.

As far as I am concerned, I think that all of these Christian leaders and pastors who have espoused this have gone the way of Balaam the prophet – telling pagan leaders what they want to hear in spiritual terms in exchange for profit and influence.  I intend to hang their endorsement of Donald Trump, and their lame justification for it, around their necks like an albatross for the rest of their lives (albeit subject to repentance and wising up, like we all have had to do).  The next time they begin publicly moralizing about how immoral certain Americans are – including gays, or thoese irascible “millennials” – I am going to throw their endorsement of Trump back into their face, and tell them where to stick it; I don’t want to hear any of their moral superiority any more.  I now know (actually I have known for some time), and more importantly all can see their hypocrisy, and how serious they are about moral convictions and being a “voice of conscience” to a society.  Oh, how do we need a John the Baptist today who could speak real “truth to power”, and also point out these sold-out Christian leaders as a “brood of vipers”!  The rank and file Christian Trump supporter has no excuse, no more than any of us saying these politicans are the problem and were forced on us – someone had to vote these guys (Trump and Clinton) in during the primaries, and think they were a “good choice”.  I think these supporters have gone the way of Esau – “despising their birthright” by selling their Christian moral authority for a promised bowl of porridge of feel-good, militant American exceptionalism, and scapgoating of Mexican and Muslim outsiders for all our problems.  I’m afraid this birthrite of spiritual credibility is also hard to get back.  It has exposed their priorities and a projection of their own internal values and ideals.

Trump’s life has been defined by his establishing of his “brand” (with his names on buildings, steaks, airlines, etc.), and the “art of the deal”.  Ironically, his book by that name that made him famous was not even written by him, and his ghost writer who did come up with his philosophy for him has now renounced him and rejects what he stands for.  I guess some might admire Trump as a “success” – as one might consider a “success” who only started with millions to invest from his dad and his dad’s Rolodex of insider real estate contacts (and the shirt on his back), and his ability to declare bankruptcy numerous times while leaving all his partners and creditors holding the bag (which he defines as “success”).  In Trump’s world, a “good deal” is not when both parties succeed in their goals as a “win-win”; no, there must be a winner and a loser of a transaction as to its value, to feed to egos of Trump and his ilk (as he did with Merv Griffin over Resorts International).  In his deals, he must “sell” a persona of awe to intimidate his “mark” (a term from street con games), followed by periods of “good guy” posturing and flattery when needed, as well as “tough guy” belittling of a deal opponent to give them fear of refusal (having the perceived dough to threaten endless lawsuits also serves he and his type well as well).  He himself believes none of it (other than some measure of self-denial), and seeks only to “win”, and does not see destroying his opponent as “personal” (see the horrible things he has said to his primary rivals, and then instantly made up with them when they were no longer a threat to his goals). I have experienced these behaviors myself from billionaires and other high-rollers I have had to do business with, and even strike deals with (or defend myself when they break them).  I have witnessed him using all these techniques on America and his growing ranks of gullible followers during this campaign, and he has played them like a Stradivarios.  Most have never had to deal with types like him before (except at maybe an Amway sales meeting or similar scenario or timeshare sales experience).  He has flattered them. charmed them, and made them in awe of him, and “ready to sign”.  His emphasis on “winning” in all his talks (when not offending women and their looks, or Hillary. the media conspirators, etc.) sits well with Americans, including many American Christians, because the real religion of America is “winning” – winning wars, winning sports, winning in global business, etc.  We will deal with the devil (while spouting moralisitic platitiudes) as long as we can be with a “winner”, and maybe have some of that success rub off – at least Dr. Dobson, Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr. do.  Trump has produced no evidence, much less detailed plans, on how he will be the “greatest” in all these areas, other than his showmanship.  All of his other partners and associates have ended in sorrow and loss; what will be the fate of America, and its Religious Right?  Who will hold the bag this time when he goes “bankrupt”?  Instead of using money and New York lawyers to intimidate people with threats, what happens when he is privy to the capabilities of the CIA, FBI and the military?  He has also shown us how gullible we are, in his fawning adoration for the “strong man” (and former KGB spook) Vladimir Putin, who may be helping him covertly (according to the FBI).  Christian leaders (including Graham) have praised the despot Putin, who jails and kills opposition, shuts down independent media and is building his own personal largesse as the singlemost powerful individual controlling energy supplies in the world, to add to his own wealth.  Graham and his Christian leader peers (and many laypersons) have been calling Putin himself the “lion of Christianity” for his jailing of gay persons or those with dissenting views to his government or the Russian Orthodox Church, while ignoring his laws that are outlawing an evangelical presence in his country.  Putin and Trump both share in common a desire to inspire their national churches with nationalistic fervor, and to exploit them for their own financial and political gains.

All these words of rebuke are not intended in any way to elevate or promote HIllary Clinton – a Nixon-like figure of entitlement, paranoia and secrecy that would continue our less-than-ideal leadership vacuum, although probably not quite the Wormwood figure that Right Wing Talk Radio has indoctinated Christians to adopt withour question or critique (these same sources and their followers also said there would be no election in 2012 or 2016 if Obama was elected).  I did not vote for Hillary in the primaries (nor Trump or his warmonger Repubican peers), and I don’t plan to in the general election; I remind you that there are other choices for president on our ballots, and I would submit that now is an excellent time (with two terrible major candidates) to begin availing yourself of them, as I have done for several elections (and wish I had done earlier).  I do encourage you to vote; even as Christian citizens of “another kingdom”, I believe that is is right for us to vote, at least as an expression of gratitude to God who gave it to us here in America, and as a small measure of positive influence.  Don’t tell me I am “wasting my vote” by not endorsing either of the two similar criminal syndicates we know as “political parties”; I am tired of endorsing the status quo of them with my vote, and the choice of candidates will not improve unless we change course (and more importantly, educate our fellow Christians).  Some Christians think Trump will fight the neo-cons.  It is true that a few of the neocons (such as Bill Krystal) cannot swallow him, and I like his critique of the Iraq War and Syrian intervention.  However, I see that his advisors are chock full of neocons and warmongers (and endorsed by gen. Boykin, to boot, as well as Dick Cheney), and he has had the audacity to say publicly recently, “I love war”.  Does anyoen really know what he will do once he is in office?  Who is he beholden to?  Does the Religious Right really think he will give them the time of day after he has rangled their votes, if he wins?

That’s it – I have much more to say, but I should quit while I am behind and say no more, before there is no one else left to piss off (I sadly have had strained relationships with many close friends needlessly over this issue).  Even though this election may not inspire most of us, we can use it constructively, regardless of what the “world” does, to see what it says about us as individual Christians and our Christian community and what we value, and the state of our witness in this world after the smoke of this election clears.  I suspect that God will use this to bring some clarity, and even separation (and new bed-fellows and fellow travelers) to perceptive Christians in the days ahead.

Buckle your seat belts, and keep a long-term, heavenly kingdom perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally – Worthy Candidates of “Enhanced Interrogation”

Lifewaterbaording

Those readers familiar with me and my work know that I have staunchly been against the use of torture, or anything that smacks of it – Joseph Farah, head of the Christian-oriented media site World Net Daily virtually hung up on my Future Quake radio co-host and myself because I raised issues about Guantanamo Bay and the callous views he and other Christians have about the innocence of many of the detainees, much less their treatment.  The first volume of my soon-to-be-released book series, The Holy War Chronicles – A Spiritual View of the War on Terror, focuses in its first volume on the documented nature and ramifications of the torture protocols of the War on Terror on both the torturer and the tortured.  I have reiterated my opposition to torture on a number of radio interviews as well.

However, I think I have found a situation now and an associated group of people for whom I can make an exception.

A movement is now underway within Congress, supported by members of both parties, to finally insist on the declassification of the 28 missing pages from the 2002 9/11 Commission report.  Although Congressmen “in the know” have been forbidden to exactly reveal its contents until now, it has been a worst kept secret that it reveals evidence of Saudi Arabian direction behind the 9/11 attacks.

It has just been now revealed in an April 15, 2016 New York Times report that

“Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”  It continues by saying that “The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage…Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.  Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.  ‘It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,’ said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation…President Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials…Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.  Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly.”

“Families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the courts to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.”

“The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.”

“Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

“In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad.”

“…the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen. The Saudi military is flying jets and dropping bombs it bought from the United States — part of the billions of dollars in arms deals that have been negotiated with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations during the Obama administration.  The war has been a humanitarian disaster and fueled a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, leading to the resolution in Congress to put new restrictions on arms deals to the kingdom.”

Today’s (April 17, 2016) New York Post had further details to add:

“In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom… the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.”

“Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.  Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was ‘diplomatic immunity.’  Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.”

“Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.  An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.  The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, ‘but the embassy complained to the US attorney’ and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.”

“Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.  ‘The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,’ Guandolo said. ‘He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.’ But Bandar held sway over the FBI.”

“After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.”

‘The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,’ said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House ‘let them off the hook.’  What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis.  ‘The FBI covered their ears every time we mentioned the Saudis,’ said former Fairfax County Police Lt. Roger Kelly. ‘“It was too political to touch.'”

“Even Anwar al-Awlaki, the hijackers’ spiritual adviser, escaped our grasp. In 2002, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was detained at JFK on passport fraud charges only to be released into the custody of a ‘Saudi representative.’  It wasn’t until 2011 that Awlaki was brought to justice — by way of a CIA drone strike.  Strangely, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which followed the congressional inquiry, never cites the catch-and-release of Awlaki, and it mentions Bandar only in passing, his named buried in footnotes.”

“Two commission lawyers investigating the Saudi support network for the hijackers complained their boss, executive director Philip Zelikow, blocked them from issuing subpoenas and conducting interviews of Saudi suspects.  9/11 Commission member John Lehman was interested in the hijackers’ connections to Bandar, his wife and the Islamic affairs office at the embassy. But every time he tried to get information on that front, he was stonewalled by the White House.’They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,’ Lehman was quoted as saying.”

 

 

 

What are some of the conclusions can we draw from this?

  1.  Beyond the contents of the classified pages and other investigative work by the FBI and others, the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is now threatening economic terrorism by destabilizing world markets if this investigation is released, is in fact a tacit admission of guilt by them in my view, and not there being investigative findings they feel they could dispute or disprove if released.
  2. The connections between the Bushes and Prince Bandar and the Saudi royal family, including cozy meetings mere hours after thousands of Americans had died, is fodder for detailed hearings and subpoenas to determine how this has influenced world events, and how this has been kept from the public (this does not even mention Bush Sr.’s meeting with the entire Bin Laden faily, his business partners through the Carlyle Group, of whom he was meeting with on the day of 9/11, and leading to their discreet flights home as the only planes in the skies in the hours after the attacks).
  3. Although the “buck stops” at the President’s desk, the tentacles of collaboration to provide protection for the Saudis goes through the Justice Dept., Defense Dept., FBI, CIA and other groups.
  4. President Obama, like Bush, is protecting the Saudis to protect lucractive miltiary contracts with them, and to protect Blackwater, the intelligence and military members from reciprocal challenges to diplomatic immunity due to their torture tactics and other atrocities overseas, as well as other key big business figures whose actions cause harm to those in other countries (like Union Carbide, etc.)
  5. It is likely we have attacked innocent parties in countries like Afghanistan, while the masterminds go free.  This is why we have world courts (as the Taliban agreed to turn Al Qaeda over to originally), to settle out the true culprits, unless our government did not want the true culrpits exposed.
  6. I guess government officials are supposed to have “diplomatic immunity” from actions of our government to otherwise hold them accountable, even if they are suspected in terror acts, but that did not stop Bush & Co. from denying the same to Saddam Hussein and his boys.
  7.  In effect, our senior government officials are “accessories to the crime”, and may well have been part of masterminding it.  As Bush himself said in defining the “Bush Doctrine” in a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, ” we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism…From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”  Saudi Arabia has provided safe haven to those who assisted the terrorists if not from the very top, and the U.S. Government officials have given safe haven to them, so all are considered “enemies” of the interests of the American people.
  8. Those nutty “conspiracy theorists” who have pointed out these things for years, even about our “messianic” George W. Bush, aren’t wrong all the time.

 

In light of point #6, I think it is apparent that senior officials in the Bush administration, other agencies, and even President Obama know much more than they are telling us, and it appears they may have complicity (or centrality) in these crimes.  One other point to note:  My research for years concerning events in the Middle East in the last 50 years has shown consistently that if either Saudi Arabia, Israel or the United States are involved in some initiative, the other two are usually involved as well, or at least well aware of it.  For one example, published reports from major newspapers  I cite from the early days of the Arab Spring reveal American, Israeli and Saudi coordinated training and arming of ISIS and others in Jordan and Turkey, to assist in the overthrow of Syrian President Assad – in the days before all the press turned on ISIS and they became the new “boogeyman”.

To get to the bottom of what they know about the plans and culprits of these terror attacks, I think we only have at our disposal the very tool they each claimed was “not torture”, and very effective in getting “actionable intelligence” that “saves lifes”.  Although many (including me) have disputed these assertions, one way to prove their point would be to submit them to waterboarding and other forms of torture (er, “enhanced interrogation”) to find out truly what they know.

Here’s a list of people I would have our authorities start to detain and interrogate in “enhanced fashion”:

  1.  George W. Bush
  2. Dick Cheney (a must; they better hurry)
  3. Donald Rumsfeld
  4. Atty. General John Ashcroft
  5. George H.W. Bush (as a bonus, he might also reveal under torture why he was sent to Dallas as a CIA agent right before JFK was shot, but says he can’t remember why)
  6. CIA chief (all of them)
  7. John Yoo (Justice Dept. official behind the “Torture Memo” authorizing waterboarding and other torture, as well as approving warrantless wiretaps and denial of Geneva Convention protection to detainees; wanted for war crimes in Spain; might know something)
  8. Atty. General Alberto Gonzales (also authorized torture, NSA eavesdropping, punished govt. attorneys who would not do political dirty work, forced from office, also wanted for war crimes in Spain, hired by Nashville Baptist Belmont University as their Dean of their College of Law, and instructor on “Constitution Law” and “Separation of Powers”, as a representative of the school)

I would assign them under the care of former military member Lynndie England, who can stack them naked in pyramids and take pictures of them, until we have the information we need.  After the dogs are through with them (to loosen them up), I suggest they spend some time alone in a room with family members of those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terror attacks, or in military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; I am sure in no time they would be pleading to be taken to the interrogation rooms.  If we need to get rougher, we can always hand them over to our allies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe to finish the deal (this may be needed for post-office President Obama, since to be fair he did not approve of American personnel torturing detainees).  If we expect resistance from them or their supporters, we may need to do “old school”, War on Terror-style rendition, by sweeping them off the street, giving them an enema, slapping a diaper on them and sending them blindfolded by unmarked private plane to parts unknown.  This would probably be necessary to pick up Bandar and the rest of the Saudi family; its no more illegal to do than the others we have done the same to, and it will give our CIA guys and SEALs something to do.

Of course this is only a dream, and not an intention; but it if did happen, it would give us all, including the whole world, better odds of preventing future terror attacks, rather than doing it to turbaned villagers in the Third World.

ADDENDUM:  As a further example of US/Saudi complicity (in particular regarding the 9/11 Terror attacks), I quote an excerpt from Volume 1 of my book series, The Holy War Chronicles – A Spiritual View of the War on Terror:

“Before that, in October 2001 French intelligence told the French newspaper Le Figaro that CIA agents went to see bin Laden in Dubai at the American-run hospital there in July 2001, while he was being treated for 10 days by the urology department, as well as Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence (the news wire United Press International further added [Bryant, Elizabeth, “Radio reports new CIA-Bin Laden details”, United Press International, Nov. 1, 2001, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2001/11/01/Radio-reports-new-CIA-Bin-Laden-details/UPI-49911004627280/ (retrieved June 12, 2013).] that Radio France International identified one of the CIA agents as Larry Mitchell, an Arab specialist and “consular agent” from Dubai’s expatriate community, who met with bin Laden on July 12, two days before he checked out of the hospital).  The London Guardian newspaper also reported on this meeting of CIA and Saudi intelligence officials with bin Laden just before 9/11 [Sampson, Anthony, “CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July”, Oct. 31, 2001, London Guardian (UK), http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism (retrieved March 15, 2013).], and noted that “Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health.  Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitus C, and can expect to live for only two more years”, having had delivered a mobile dialysis machine to Kandahar in Afghanistan.”

 

Quick Thought of the Day: Government – A Coercive Force to Restrain Coercion

policemen separatign kids

 

As friends and many followers over the years of my radio show Future Quake and my exploits since then (and this blog) have observed, I have been reassessing over this time some fundamental understandings of society, its institutions and the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond the simple, unchallenged maxims of my blessed American Christian upbringing. Never in the journey have I been led to doubt the veracity of the claims of Jesus, the teachings of Him and His Apostles, or the realities and promises they back up with real evidence of a resurrected man, seen by hundreds and testified by them in virtual real-time in widely-circulated written affidavits and oral testimonies for which they paid their lives as guarantees.  What I have discovered is that in my enviable and truly wholesome upbringing I and others find ourselves carrying additional concepts in our “buckets” to defend, be they political ideologies, national agendas, or religious constructs and the high-profile leaders and institutions that subsist on them.  It is an effort (a life-long one, in fact) to de-couple those additives from the purity of the person of Christ and the teaching of the Kingdom, and I know missteps will be made along the way.  I still adhere to my adage that “whatever we do not critique, we worship”, and thus if I am to worship Jesus and what He represents exclusively (thus Him being “beyond critique”, but rather being the standard of critique), then whatever ideas or concepts I entertain in my life, however “good” or “Christian”, must be intentionally and consistently critiqued against what He represents, not for purposes of “judgment” of others, “sitting in the seat of scoffers”, or elevating oneself, but merely as a tangible act of worship of Him, by restricting access to who or what has access to my heart’s and mind’s “throne”.

I concede that most “normal” people do not spend too much of their useful and precious time thinking about the right role of civil government in this era of “grace”, before Christ imposes His dominion over earthly government one day soon.  The hijinx we see in politics today (of which this campaign cycle has taken to new depths) makes peoples’ heads hurt, and they throw their hands up in disgust and helplessness, and change the discussion to more constructive subjects.  However, in a participatory democracy as ours (which we have argued for generations we would fight for to preserve over other forms), I still feel like we have a duty to assist in improving and help preserving a necessary institution that God intented to restrain evil on the earth until His Son directs it without protest; it also is another (but certainly not only) venue for us to gently be “salt and light”, and to “be our brother’s keeper” and “love our neighbor”.  I now see in scripture how God intended human societies and governments, while not coincident with the present “Kingdom of God”, to “hold the fort” until His return while reflecting more universal earth-bound values than Christ’s specific “marching orders” for waging spiritual war in the heavenlies through the Church, such as reflecting the “sum of the Law” – the “Golden Rule” that all peoples know is right.

I have been blessed in many ways by the thoughts and friendship of Robert Heid, as well as many listeners have in his appearances on Future Quake, and the concepts he has presented for which I had been ignorant.  One prominent example is the field of libertarian thinking.  It has opened my eyes as a Christian to principles that now seem self-evident to me, such as the primacy in society of defending the rights of “free association” (or disassociation), “self-determination” and maybe most importantly, “non-coercion”.  In my deliberations in thought and study of God’s Word, I find that these principles are consistent with God’s guidance for secular governments for this age before His return.  It is ironic to note that, since I am a premillennialist who perceives that Christ still intends to rule over a physical earth one day for a thousand years prior to the creation of a New Heavens and New Earth, even with Christ’s on-site rule with a “rod of iron”, reigning over the “Seven Mountains” of dominion some Christians seek to control today, those who do not vountarily submit to Him and His ways then will quickly rejoin Satan’s rebellion once he is again made available to them, even after experiencing the blessings of Christ’s earthly rule.  It reinforces the notion that the Kingdom of Heaven, which will rule over a New Heavens and New Earth cosmos, must be filled with voluntary, non-coerced willing subjects that take on the non-self-serving aspects of the Kingdom so that it may remain intact eternally.  This also explains why in world history when “God’s People” try to enforce the Kingdom of Heaven by coercive force, it has only resulted in bloodshed and corruption, with their dissenting Christian neighbors paying the heaviest price.   However, I have also observed the “dark side” of the libertarian community (or those who corrupt it for their purposes), which is typified in the teaching and followers of Ayn Rand.  It proposes what is no more than Social Darwinism, a “survival of the fittest” – ironically, much of what is today’s Conservative Movement, with Darwinistic emphases on unbridled, banker-led economics and gunboat diplomacy.  Such a community based on “King of the Hill” ethics of selfishness would consume itself eventually.  It flirts with anarchism (using government only for the purposes of the elite) and sees no constraining role of government except to keep the “barbarians from the gate”.

In this line of thinking, I have come to the realization that the unique (and necessary) role of government is coercive force.  In other words, a society gathers and decides it is in its collective interest to embue those they select (by various means) with the authority and power to force certain arrangements to be made.  Many other associations and groups can be formed to pursue other beneficial aims, but governments are uniquely tasked with those that require cocercion.  We have all seen in history that those given coercive force, and the means to enforce it, will likely use it for their own ends, against the people, or for one segment of the population against the rest.  Therefore, wisdom dictates that it should be given for the bare minimum of essential purposes.  It is generally agreed that these essential missions are for the legislators (to codify and legitimize laws for the peaceful and fair operation of society), the courts (to be the final word of when one has broken these laws and harmed others, and the proper course of action and remedy), the corrections community to mete out their findings and restrain (and hopefully rehabilitate) threatening people for extended periods, police to restore peace and provide instant remedy when one’s personal well-being or property is under immediate threat by others (being truly “peace officers” and NOT “law enforcement” – the latter role to be determined by the more knowledgable courts), and soldiers (preferably non-standing armies of citizens) to provide collective defense against other sovereign nations that impinge upon it.  One could argue that any other roles in society are not essential to be performed by government, and should be farmed out to others.  The other principle our Founding Fathers and others before them wisely observed and then deployed was a “separation of powers”, to make sure one small group did not collect and thus abuse all the power vested in government.  When we see the gridlock in Washington and elsewhere in government, we should not be completed incensed; it is fact may be an essential protective “nuisance”, and beware when all the holders of power are on the same page, and in collusion!  This competition is often seen as a sign of societal disfunction, but in fact we should promote a healthy opposition amongst all sectors of influence in our society.  Not only should our branches of government be resistant and suspicious of each other (with the ability to investigate and hold other branches accountable), but the police, military, Wall Street, press and other institutions should all be highly skeptical of each other, and “hold each other’s feet to the fire” in all cases, and not get too cozy with each other at all.  The Press in particular should be combative with all these other institutions, and not fawning over them.  When people do need to get together, to help in disasters or real common threats, constructive collusion will withstand these protective measures and attitudes.  This is why whistleblowers are heroes and not traitors or villians, and we need lawful yet accountable venues for them to expose institutional evils without he ability to submerge them, or create unintended harm.  This also why all the different dissenting Christian denominations and other groups are a type of “blessing”, for they disperse centralized power and influence, which damages Christian communities as much or more than their secular counterparts.

All of this discussion is a preamble to the new question I am now asking: are these roles the limits of “coercive force” that government should be granted?  With a full acknowledgement that coercive force is a very dangerous weapon that should be meted out with great caution, in essence its use of coercion, properly used, is to arrest the use of coercion by one citizen or group over others.  As the picture at the top of this post suggests, and may be merely a policemen stopping a “bully” from coercing others or causing harm.  They restrain those who force their will on others by stealing or threatening them.  However, as this world gets more and more complex, are there new forms of coercion becoming available to exploit others that government must arise to arrest, and is Christian thinking keeping up with it?  Even back in the Middle Ages, the two existing power centers, the Church and the State, realized that a new power center emerged – the financial sector – through the new banking institutions established by the Knights Templar, and thus took strong coervice action (right or wrong) together as an admission that it must be contrained (while other emerging banking empires arose outside the reach of the Church that often colluded with the other power centers for its own preservation).  After the age of the “robber barons” and “Gilded Age”, when America and the West produced all-powerful aristocrats and oligarchs who fought ruthlessly to obtain monopolies on utlities and products Americans considered essential, government stepped in with anti-trust laws to slow down a runaway force that would have exploited the bulk of humanity enslaved in the Industrial Age.  Since that time, these powers (having access to the funds that fuel them and provide them political influence) have not accepted their leash, and find new novel ways of entrapping humanity just like an enemy’s bayonet, often in “guilded cages” that the victim does not even recognize – courtesy of the advanced sciences of advertising and public relations, a “psy op” that fashions the minds, values and self-perceptions of the public.  Gandhi chose one of the purest ways by refusing to buy the salt they controlled, and rather walked to the sea with his fellow citizens to get it – this approach should be employed more via boycotts, but can it solve all the threats imposed on a vulnerable public?  We have not even mentioned coercive acts of others that many see as indirect, such as dumping polluted water across our property or public drinking supplies, or in the collective air we breathe.  Remedies to this problem have just started in the last generation, and many Christians still see this problem as non-existent, planning rather to hitch a ride on the Rapture Express and let others sort out the mess.  Do Christian need to “grow up” to the world around them and see the real threats to themsevles and their neighbors they are ignoring?

We should not naively expect that government bureaucrats or regulators will be more virtuous than average citizens – we know they can be corrupted, or even just go off on their own “power trip”.  However, what types of newer practical “coercion” is society now being exposed to, from being debt slaves in a environment of low wages and predatory interest, collapsing and unhealthy inner cities, a media almost owned entirely by six money-making conglomerates, genetically-modified foods (sometimes without our knowledge) and tainted groundwater, still unrestained air pollution, a government that jails and makes hardened criminals of those who privately use a substance they ban, and a host of other new “controllers”?  If the Church will not use its wealth, network of local and national voices and resources, and moral authority to address these “bullies” and coercive guilty parties, then what resource of contraint do we have other than our government?

What are your thoughts on these matters?

 

Vote for Pedro

NapoleonAndPedro

Friends,

Tomorrow I have to cast a primary vote in Tennessee for the upcoming presidential election.  I think we can all agree this has been some kind of disturbing election season, which I think portends a work God is doing to show us who we as Americans, and in particular Christians, truly are, in the eyes of God and everyone else.  I am not going to tell you who to vote for, but I am going to suggest the kind of person to vote for.

Vote for Pedro.

Those of you who are now confused (or think I am being racist) are obviously the few who have not seen the wonderful and insightful (and funny) 2004 movie Napoleon Dynamite.  The “heroes” of the movie were a trio of geeky outcasts at school – the types we all knew, or better yet (as in my case) were.  One of the main story elements was a competition for school student body president between a socially awkward Mexican transfer student Pedro, whose shyness reveals the courage and daring (or madness) he exhibited in even deciding to run, and the domineering “insider”, the popular and beautiful cheerleader “Summer”.  While her many popular friends posted “Vote for Summer” signs everywhere (she probably did not have to compete for Prom Queen), Pedro’s buddy Napoleon sported the now societally-popular phrase “Vote for Pedro”, using an old iron-on “puffy” transfer on a T-shirt.  As the movie’s many viewers fondly recall, Pedro was ready to get his head handed to him in the election, when a school assembly beforehand let Summer and her cheerleader friends use their sex-appeal in a dance number, contrasted to Pedro’s unassuming and unimpressive speech, until Napoleon saved the day with the most exotic dance number ever put to celluloid.

The message of this aspect of the film is more relevant now than ever.  It contrasted the two kinds of people in the world – the “insiders” (“Summers”) and the “outsiders” (“Pedros”).  We and the public make numerous value judgments each day over who are friends are or those we want, the leaders we want to follow, the people we want to trust and then purchase from, the company we keep, and the kinds of people we aspire to be like.  In this context, the “Pedros” never have a chance when it comes to earning our devotion, wallets, endorsements and emulation.  Ads and commercials are filled with beautiful and macho “Summers”, male and female, who have ideal weight and body type, do amazing physical sports and exercise, go on all-inclusive vacations to the Bahamas and dance in formal wear on the beach, walk with a swagger and confidence, and “know what they are doing”.  And then there’s the rest of us – including those who try with great effort but in vain to measure up or gain their acceptance and approval, or those of us who gave up, either due to lack of energy or interest.

Here’s some of the traits I can think of concerning the “Summers” and “Pedros” of the world:

“Summers”                                                                       “Pedros”

Seen as physically attractive, sex appeal    “Average” or less looks, appeal less noticed

Confident in statements and positions             Tentative, self-critical, slow to speak

Swagger in style and image – “big talker”       Meek, self-effacing

Surrounded by adorers or other “insiders”     Loners or small group of fellow “Pedros”

Often born into “Summerdom” by parents     Humble upbringing

Wealthy, connected, advantages for success   Starts from the bottom, no insider help

Gets heard, attention whenever they want     Often overlooked, seen as hopeless, “loser”

Gets all the breaks                                      Gets few breaks

Will drop friends when no longer useful     Loyal to fellow “Pedros” who offer nothing

I could go on, but you get the point.  The “Summers” get picked first in pickup sports, get invited to the slumber parties, get multiple prom date requests, selected as team captains and class presidents, fraternity and sorority offers, lucrative job positions, quick promotions (particularly in the military) regardless of true skill, and offers to join high society.  And then there’s the rest of us “Pedros”, who could only dream of such attention and opportunities, and watch such people adored on TV and elsewhere.  Janis Ian, a backward wallflower growing up herself, wrote of these latter people in her hauntingly melancholic hit song, “Seventeen”.  Some of the lyrics are

I learned the truth at seventeen
That love was meant for the beauty queens
And high school girls with clear-skinned smiles
Who married young and then retired

The valentines I never knew
The Friday night charades of youth
Were spent on one more beautiful
At seventeen I learned the truth

And those of us with ravaged faces
Lacking in the social graces
Desperately remained at home
Inventing lovers on the phone

—————————————————-

And the rich relationed hometown queen
Marries into what she needs
With a guarantee of company
And haven for the elderly

—————————————————

To those of us who knew the pain
Of valentines that never came
And those whose names were never called
When choosing sides for basketball

It was long ago and far away
The world was younger than today
When dreams were all they gave for free
To ugly duckling girls like me

 

These “Summers” are the people who are “super-salesmen” who we admire and thus succeed, becoming charismatic military leaders, entrepeneurs and CEOS by “looking like they know what they are doing”.  Even well-known pastors in mega-churches and para-church organizations can come from these ranks.

I have been blessed to be around wise Christian family and friends of great attributes but humble estates my whole life.  I have rubbed shoulders with billionaires and connected people in my early career, and even had Lear Jet rides and the keys to executive positions dangled in front of me.  However, I knew then I could never fit in or pull it off, and I am greatful to God to be spared such a shallow and unfulfilling existence.  When one becomes aware of the move-prop facade this type of “success” is, one cannot help losing one’s natural envy of others who do “make it”, and all its material perks and supposed esteem-builders, and feel sorry for those struggling so hard to find that elusive contentment and real acceptance with that crowd, and truly feel pity for their BMW and “work hard/play hard” worlds.  If is particularly sad to see women in Southern California, and now everywhere, who have been told that their value is merely their looks and youth, and thereby mutilate themselves at times in a vain attempt (excuse to the pun) to retain their “utility”.

The ultimate domain for the “Summers” is in the field of politics.   It is often all about image, swagger, “tough guy” mentality, and frankly being a bully.  As you can imagine, in a regular field of narcissists we now have a candidate who probably is the ultimate “Summer” – a wealthy billionaire born into wealth and connections, with people who hang on his every word, whether it is foolish or not, and even if he is insulting them or pandering to them in an obvious condescening way (and I have to say that Christians always seem by and large to be the most gullible).  They are dealing with a “dealer” whose life of deals are not those that are “win-win” for two parties who meet each other’s needs, but where one is a “winner” and the other a “loser”, decided on who has more inside information or assets, or merely by bluff, bullying and intimidation.  Those who are in the way either get out of the way, or get sued – just ask Merv Griffin – to further show his awesome “power”.  His success?  You know what they say – “Everybody loves a winner”.  The people proving this adage the most by beating a path to sit at his feet are many of our most prominent Christian leaders, and professing American Christians in general.

Well, I have started a movement some time ago to start voting for the “Pedros” of the world.  If it is real popular in society right now, be it a television show, style of music, gadgets or other styles, I’m probably going to take a pass on it.  If it is a “trend”, “fashionable” or status symbol – count me out.  If a person comes well-connected or with lots of money in their background, I’m probably going to write them off right on the spot.  If they come with associations with powerful or prominent organizations and institutions, I will probably write them off too.  If they are not selling themselves, but rather a noble idea, particularly one that looks out for the Forgotten People (those in institutional care, the elderly or low-income, all of whom are of no interest to Madison Avenue, Wall Street or the politicians, or others “out of favor”), then I will probably buy in, even if I disagree with them on certain matters; it is a question of integrity.  If “insiders” recommend them, groom them or try to influence them, they are off my list, regardless of the good “positions” they claim to represent – I am old enough now to know whose interests they really represent.

This is a life decision for me, concerning all aspects of life.  Tomorrow I am going to “vote for Pedro” at the ballot box.  Won’t you join me?

 

 

 

 

Building Walls or Building Bridges – Trump and the Pope

482295313.0.0_2.0.0Sorry, friends, that I am been absent for a while here, but I have been busy trying to wrap up the next-to-last volume of my book series, and other personal matters.  However, there has been buzz recently concerning a unique scrap between two major public figures concerning a religious matter, for which I just had to add my two-cents as food for thought.

As most of you know, a few days ago the Pope was asked to comment about popular Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his comments about the Mexicans that the Pope was visiting at the time at the border.  The interchange has been famously misquoted on television and on line almost everywhere, but you can read the actual comments, in context, here.  The key points of question to the Pope and his response are taken from this cited reference and the Catholic News Agency transcript, and include the following:

Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?

Pope Francis: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

Trump subsequently took the media bait in twisting the Pope’s words, and said that someone challenging whether another person was a Christian was “disgraceful”; nevermind that less than 24 hours before Trump himself was publicly challenging Ted Cruz’ true Christianity because of his alleged deceit.  Trump also would love to give the Catholic leader a “black eye” on the eve of the South Carolina primary, which is overwhelmingly evangelical and distrustful of the Pope anyway.  His gambit paid off; numerous polls showed that his comments about the Pope raised his standing with voters, and in his vote returns, as the most popular candidate today amongst evangelicals, according to polls, and with major endorsements such as Liberty University head Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham.  Trump added that any reservations the Pope had a about the wall in Mexico were due to his ignorance, and that one day when ISIS attacks the Vatican he will wish there had been a President Trump.

It is important to look carefully at the words the Pope chose to use in his forced off-the-cuff response to a reporter, for he is a real thinking person.  He did not say that someone who wanted a wall for a specific instance and justification was in question (for example, for a prison); rather, he responded to the reporter’s description of a man who spoke poorly of him and others that seek diplomacy, and sought to deport large numbers and split up families, in the reporters view.  In response, the Pope carefully said that one who only thinks about building walls and not building bridges, is not a Christian, adding that “This is not the Gospel”.  In other words, it is a matter of the nature of the person and their first “gut level”, reactionary responses to any conflict and disagreements, that defines their connection to Christ, or “abiding in the Vine”.  The choice between “building bridges” or “building walls” is at the heart of the Gospel; it’s the same as the choice between Jesus od Nazareth or Jesus Barabbas.

I believe the Pope is on sound Biblical foundation in his assertion here.  There are only a handful of uses of the word “wall” itself in the New Testament.  Their is a reference to a wall in Damascus in which Saul of Tarsus was let over in a basket to prevent his capture, and the “whited wall” that Paul used to describe the chief priest, similar to a comparison Christ made, but with neither in a favorable intention.  There is also the wall in the New Jerusalem.  However, it has numerous wide gates that never close, that the free people are free to pass through, as they take refreshment from the Tree of Life, the River from the Throne and God’s presence, all taken freely and without restriction – the “end game” God wants for His people.  The only other reference in the entire New Testament is a doctrinal one, from the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2, when he told the Gentile Ephesians that

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” (Ephesians 2:12-16)

At the time (at least for a decade or two more), the Temple stood, as it had for centuries, with a separate outer courtyard for Gentiles, and an inner court for the Jews; if a Gentile strolled in the inner area, signage was posted that said he was to be killed.  When Jesus died on the Cross, He first tore down the first “wall” between God and man when the Holy of Holies curtain was torn; a generation later, the entire Temple complex, with its “wall of separation” between Jew and Gentile, would be visibly broken down.  Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit broke down other barriers between Jew and Gentile, with the visions for Peter and the salvation of Cornelius and other Gentiles.  When the Pope mentions people who think only of building walls or building bridges, he is referencing this Biblical teaching: “And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18).

I have witnessed a number of pro-Trump pastors come to his defense (Trump’s, not the Pope’s, the latter having been lambasted by many Christians for his comments), saying that building walls was Biblical, and cited Nehemiah as their sole example.  I find it curious to note that Nehemiah himself (aside from his own singlular book) was mentioned only in one verse in the book of Ezra (a similar book), and no where else in the Old Testament, and certainly not in the New.  Neither Christ nor the Apostles found any cause or reason to ever cite Nehemiah, and his fellow armed wall builders, as a spiritual model for their teaching of the New Covenant and Kingdom of Heaven – I wonder why?

I’ll conclude by noting the irony that the other Republican candidate popular with evangelicals – Ted Cruz – is using David Barton as head of Cruz’s “Keep the Promise” Super-PAC.  Barton is a former Texas Republican Party vice chairman, and a political consultant to the Republican National Convention on wooing evangelicals.  However this man, armed with his sole Bachelor’s Degree in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, is a household name (at least in Christian households) for being “an expert in historical and constitutional issues”, at least according to his own claims in his own organization biography. You may already know that many fellow Christian historians of legitimate historian academic credentials have debunked many of his assertions concerning the spiritual faith fo the Founding Fathers and their documents, including those he excises and omits, and his exoriation of the separation of church and state, and original intentions. What is the name of his organization? Wallbuilders.  On the same web page he says the organization name comes from “the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor.”  By the way, what happened to Nehemiah’s walls they so painstakingly built?  Well, due to their own internal corruption within the walls, first the Greeks and then Romans took them over at God’s pleasure for their disobedience, and the walls did them no good.  Later, when they insisted on internal civil war and rebellion from Rome (following Zealots like the Jesus Barabbas they chose, and as American evangelicals choose today), even these walls were thrown down, along with those of the Temple itself.  Only the Western Wall fragment remains as a testament to their futility.  If a people aren’t pure at heart, walls will do them no good.  One day the Jews may build these walls again, along with the Temple (likely with evangelical help), just like their dubious wall to keep out Palestinians, to help facilitate the coronation of their “messiah” the Anti-Christ as God in their Temple.  Walls do more to keep evil in, than keep evil out.

Cultural “wall-building” is big business today in conservative and Christian circles, and has been for a long time.  It requires a Chicken Little propaganda arm to keep saying “the sky is falling”, and “barbarians are at the gate”, be they Muslims, Mexicans, Communists or secularists.  Gold and survival food is always ready for sale at Christian ministries concurrent with these messages; they follow the adage of the old Fuller Brush door-to-door salesmen: “First create a need, and then fill it”.  It requires the demonization of those who are the least bit different culturally from us, and use of the old Klan warning that “they’re coming to rape our white women”.  Intelligence agencies, defense contractors and other big businesses (even individual billionaries from casinos, gas fracking and the like) can provide all the money they need for paid airtime, first-class accommodations and facilities, and a prominent position at the National Religious Broadcasters conventions.  It violates many premises of New Testament teachings, including to love your neighbor, love your enemy, and the Golden Rule.  It also is a fundamental expression of unbelief in God and His goodness and power, to properly protect His own, and the mission of the Church in their world until it is completed.  And it is embraced by “Bible believing Christians” that are weekly church attenders now more than ever.  In contrast, “bridge builders”, be they with Muslims, the poor, minority groups and the like, are always starved for funds, and people to help.  They seek to better understand people who see things from a different perspective or experience, and even those who may claim to have gotten a raw deal by us or our ancestors, and are bitter about it.  “Bridge builders” humbly listen to others, and don’t try to butt in and defend their own culture or faith, and rather listen and be respectful to them.  They make the first move to make contact and to bless the “stranger”, who may rightfully be skeptical of them, and are patient to let trust build, even to the point of extending more grace to them than to their fellow Christians.  They take the effort to do this face-to-face, but also listen to others worldwide and in the media, and endorse their concerns (when justified) to their elected officials and their Christian leaders and friends.  While they toil away, slowly building trust with other groups, they are called “naive”, “misguided” and even unpatriotic “traitors” (the most serious of spiritual offenses) by their own Christian kindred.  These Christian scoffers are the “Sanballats” and “Tobiahs” that sew discouragement and grief in those building Christian bridges of reconciliation.  

Of course, practical yet merciful measures to secure borders, to vet entrants as to their being criminals or terrorists, is a legitimate concern of Caesar (i.e., government). However, this is not the issue here.  The real question is what do you want to be the focus of your thoughts and deeds, and instinctive “nature” over your very brief life – as a “wall builder” or a “bridge builder”?  What do you want to be?

I look forward to your enlightening comments!

 

 

 

 

 

Observations on Western Christians’ Recent Revised Views of Syrian Refugees

Friends,

In recent days since the Paris bombings, I have felt a major increase in the chill in the air in the Christian media and in my own local Christian circles in regard to the fate of the Syrian refugees fleeing certain death in their civil war-torn homeland (a war itself aided and sustained with Western assistance).  Recent reports state that governors in states across the Bible Belt are refusing to accept refugees now.  Evangelical favorite Donald Trump is now open to restricting or closing mosques in America (other Christian favorite Ben Carson has already gone on the record as saying that Muslims should be forbidden from holding the office of President – a blatant religious litmus test and discrimination that always comes back to bite Christians themselves in history).

As one example in the media, Erik Rush, a regular commentor for the online popular news site World Net Daily, which caters most specifically to the conservative Christian community, described the refugees in his recent article as “human garbage”, while acknowledging his “good standing as a narrow-minded, far-right racist”. He describes people like me as those “who, due to reasons of naïveté, stupidity, or collusion, are advancing the notion that some sort of long-term coexistence with Muslims is possible. In truth, they are abetting Islamists in their mission to spread their putrefactive creed across America.”  He adds that “Thirty years ago in America, it was understood – even by avowed liberals – that Muslims were the backward, belligerent aggressors in the Middle East”, as Americans unabashedly solely sided with Israel, whereas others who see the issues are more multi-faceted and deserving of or considering the rights of all as being “Islamophilic”.  With his professional background as a musician and martial artist, his analysis of history tells him that “For the past 1,400 years however, Muslims – all Muslims – have repeatedly proved that they represent a societal malignancy; they will always perform as a body of enemy operatives, insidiously and incrementally worming their way into non-Muslim nations with the express intention of undermining and conquering them.”

Franklin Graham, son of “America’s Pastor” Billy Graham and one who until recent years focused on ministering to the needs of people in the Middle East and Third World (while pocketing close to a cool million a year in salary from his ministry to the destitute called Samaritan’s Purse, on top of a similar amount for running the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), said in a recent published address that “If we continue to allow Muslim immigration, we’ll see much more of what happened in Paris — it’s on our doorstep.”  This is because he says “Islam is not a peaceful religion”, and “This is not the time to be politically correct. Our nation’s security is at stake.”

Back in the days of my youth, his dad was known for going to the ends of the earth to try to contact people of other cultures, even behind the Iron Curtain, to win them for Christ.  Western Christians send woefully few missionaries – even tenmaker varieties – to Muslim lands, either because of their lack of spiritual concern for them due to their Zionist first priorities, or because they fear for their own physical lives in those lands as their overriding priority.  As a result, even through the efforts of Western governments to remove their stable leaders and create civil war atrocities, God has presented an opportunity for Western Christians to still ignore their call from Jesus to “go out into the world” and share the Gospel in their lands, and rather send them here as a desperate people willing to accept help from anyone, including Christians, and thus be open to their message in a land where such dialogue is safe.  Hence, an opportunity has presented itself for an unprecedented set of circumstances to minister and share the Gospel to those who are ready to hear, on a massive scale heretofore unforeseen as possible.  In response, Western Christian leaders and their flock appear to be concerned about their own “skins” and personal security first, which evidently they are in unbelief that God Himself can preserve, and thus put their own interests above God’s agenda, and certainly the destitute Syrian people whom they are sending back to certain death, just like the ships of Jews they turned away that came from Germany before.

I know my comments section may get filled with retorts that while trying the “bless” these people would be ‘nice to do”, people like me are very naive, and the risk of a few terrorists mixing in with these hundreds of thousands of desperate people is just too much of a risk to tolerate.  Certainly, the terror attack in Paris is a major tragedy, and civil governments should use every lawful and reasonable effort to bring the handful of true culprits to justice, while not molesting the innocent.  However, it must be noted that we lose many, many magnitudes more of our loved ones in automobile accidents each day, and we do not see the same level of panic or outrage, and compromise of our supposed Christian beliefs, and we get in our vehicles every day without thought, or at least an acceptance of the much higher risk it entails.  It is amazing how fast I have seen Christians around me quickly adopt this xenophobic view of these suffering people.  I ask them where they got some of these sudden ideas, including the desire of all Muslims to lie and kill Westerners, or that “Barack Husein Obama” is leading all the Muslims in to declare sharia law.  They don’t seem to know the origins of these ideas, but my experience tells me that I know – Christian media, the Drudge Report, World Net Daily, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, etcetera.  They turned Saddam Hussein from a US ally to an enemy overnight, our new ally Qaddafi into an enemy in the Arab Spring, and even Ho Chi Minh, who had been an ally of the U.S. rescuing US pilots from the Japanese in WWII not long before our Establishment (government/media) decided he needed to be our enemy.  I know it certainly wasn’t from Jesus that they obtained this attitude.

Certainly our societies’ governments have a societal duty to protect its citizens by lawful means, but do its Christians also have a role in not letting it citizens forget those innocents who suffer in the crossfire?  Are they expected by Christ to risk their safety, or rather to place it in the Lord’s lands, so that they can minister to the “stranger” and those in need, particularly those whom God has brought their way?  Do Christians have any role in being the conscience of a society, or when they figuratively see a woman raped in the city street, desperately calling for help, they only lock their doors and draw their curtains?

Jesus said that when you offered a cup of cold water to the “least of these”, you are offering it directly to Him; likewise, when you refuse it, you refuse Him, and there will be consequences.  American Christians are evidently more afraid of ISIS than they are of Jesus’ throne of judgment.  They will find that with “the same measure with which they measure, they shall be measured”.  These refugees are desperate fathers and mothers, just like you readers, who find themselves and their children (through no fault of their own) in immediate peril, and they are helpless and at our mercy.  They have walked countless miles, leaving everything behind, to merely find safety for their families, as any of us would do.  I have seen concervative media (and Christian commentators) insinuate that they are all deceptive and spoiled, taking advantage of those who help them, as an effort to purge any public empathy for them or concern to engage in assistance.  To the Devil with these workers of iniquity!

Our supposed “Spirit-filled” American Christian flock has turned into an assembly of trained seals, or lemmings, rather than discerning people “as shrewd as wolves”.  They do not even know how to ask the right questions, rather only consdering the narrative handed to them.  They embrace total animosity toward the people of the Middle East when told to, and to be afraid of them when cued, even though they do not know them at all – their culture, religion, past experiences and sufferings, etc. – which could be legitimately gained by personal reading or better yet face to face contact, because they purposely avoid them, even though they are abundant on our universities and many neighborhoods.  They suddenly stop their main focus on sports, leusire activities or entertainment when a terror attack is broadcast and analyzed ad naseum on their television screens (because it rings the cash register in advertising revenue from great ratings), to support draconian actions suddenly when told to.  They also want an instant fix by “bombing the Middle East into a parking lot”, even though the experience in their own lifetimes has shown that this approach has not solved a single problem, and only made them worse.  They support presidential candidates who pledge to continue the long-standing American policy in the Middle East for the “beatings to continue until morale improves”.  They do not ask why people in another culture could be so wounded as to be desperate and take such actions, the role poverty and lack of economic opportunity as a region victimized by imperialism plays in their malaise, the reasons why they feel so exploited and betrayed by the West, and particulary their own refusal to do what Jesus insists that they routinely do, but is blasphemous to proud Americans – to admit that they made a mistake in years past, to apologize and make amends, as a “Christian” society themselves.  They do not ask why their own government pushed so hard to eliminate the only stable Arab governments in the Arab Spring uprisings – in Libya, Egypt and now Syria – that could have handled ISIS and thus saved so many lives.  They do not ask why the American, Turkish and Israeli governments armed and trained ISIS in camps in Jordan and Turkey over two years ago.  They do not ask how the disastrus Iraq War led to the domino effect that we see today, and why continuing that same brutish path won’t produce the same results, and why the politicans who led American into such reckless acts are not being held legally accountable for the lives of many.  As a result, they respond as their government desires, with a knee-jer reaction against a people group, rather than asking for answers from their own elected officials, whose salaries they pay.

People will do whatever they are going to do.  However, when God gives America and its Christians what it deserves for its cold hearted indifference to others and selfishness, and – let’s face it – its ultimate unbelief in Christ and His instructions and values, these Christians will blame everyone else for their plight – Obama, the Muslims, atheists, gays, etc. – for their woes as a part of “Christian persecution”, and they will never recognize that their plight is a result of actions by their own hand, while their neighbors who see them as judgmental and bitter in their contempt for others will see it as their just desserts.  Meanwhile, God will find others, probably not as outwardly pious, wealthy, politically-correct or even European-looking, to do His business and further His certain deliverance of mankind.

As I said, they can do whatever hateful and uncaring thing they want to do; however, if they continue on this self-serving path, I just wish the would not sully Jesus’ name and call themselves Christians, without following its primary imperatives.

(NOTE: An amazingly insightful analysis of how people of Godly wisdom should respond to terror today was provided by my good Christian friend FDLP, and can be read at this website.   I warn you – this website is not “Christian” in its outer piety or self-perception, and in fact uses some naughty words now and then, but for a rough-hewn site its insights are indeed heavenly in its revelation, and I assume the readers here are grown-up boys and girls.  It is indeed a shame when an outwardly non-Christian site shows more Godly wisdom and values than all the Christian sites combined, and states it far more eloquently than I ever could.)

“Coming Out of the Closet” With Thoughts on the Ongoing “Christian-Gay” War

Friends, this is another one of those blog posts I may live to regret, but I think we now live in the days when we as followers of Christ need to speak openly and plainly on difficult topics.  We need more honest “thinking out loud” (even speculating, with the expectation of changing or modifying views upon further contemplation) and humbly challenging ourselves as well as others to compare our reflection (and its culture) to that of Christ.  We need to attempt to rightly judge how well we resemble His mindset and mission, and the spirit of His priorities and values, while understanding the Gospels and words of the Apostles in that light.  The ironic “coming out of the closet” title refers to the feeling a Christian believer in our culture often feels when they ask “questions that should not be asked”, and express sympathies for “unthinkable thoughts” and “depraved individuals”, knowing that they will be misunderstood, castigated, marginalized and ostracized as a result – leading them to sympathize with others who announce their personal views and convictions with the knowledge they will experience the same as well.

A very good Christian friend of mine included me in an email chain with an attached article from the Lousiville newspaper, as yet another article about the need for Christian resistance to the gay “agenda”, written by Albert Mohler Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, you can read the article here.
The following are a few “off the cuff” comments I have concerning the article, and the general (but very difficult) topic of how America’s Christian community might deal with the “gay” issue, and some other food for thought:

  1.  First of all, I need to acknowledge who Dr. Mohler is, what is his foundational doctrinal belief and how it influences him on this issue.  Dr. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the denomination in which I was raised and active for four decades) and other popular theologians such as John Piper and R.C. Sproul (and thirty percent or more of Southern Baptist churches, evidently) are prominent Calvinists. Any churches or Christians who claim to be “reformed” almost always embrace the tenets of Calvinism.  In case you are not aware, Calvinists worship a demiurge-type god of mal intent (such as was acknowledged but resisted by the Gnostics) that intentionally created the majority of mankind to be sent without recourse eternally to the Lake of Fire, for His expressed pleasure – in essence, having the same desires and agenda as Satan himself.  God intentionally withholds the lifeline of saving irresistable grace of salvation because He wants to withhold it.  This is described as a “predestination” in which God irresistably foreordains the destiny of most people to eternal agony.  The rest of Calvinism’s “TULIP” beliefs – including the irresistibility of man’s salvation of the “elect” (i.e., those eternally lucky enough to win the “pre-natal lottery” but having no merit OR even desire of their own), or their assertion that Jesus did not die with the intention or will to save “all men”, inevitably follows from this view of the “sovereignty” of God being a bullying bulldozer that programs all of us and the universe as automotons.  This means that God made Satan fall and rebel, and Adam and Eve to fall, and all who obey such programming from God will be rewarded with a one-way trip to the Lake of Fire.  This means that any challenge by God in scripture to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve” or any other decision posed ot man is a cruel joke from God that cannot be asserted, because man is unable to make such choices, his total fate having been already preordained; it also makes evangelism a farce amongst the masses of unchangeably pre-saved or pre-lost.  This view of the “total depravity” of men rather than just being fallen (even though they are created in God’s image, and proclaimed “good” at the time) and the lack of any hope for the many “non-elect” helps such believers view suspected non-elect as animals and cannon fodder, because God has the same agenda and lack of value of them.  For just one example, popular national Christian media host and Reformed pastor Kevin Swanson stated on air recently that God is “kind” to gays by giving them AIDS.   They also insist that this view is the only way to interpret Scripture; in general, they tend to be argumentative and view themselves as more savvy with Scripture as its lawyers where doctrine supercedes mercy, and are very harsh in tone toward those who disagree or live differently, desiring to impose their values on others much as Calvin did upon pain of torture or death in his totalitarian rule in Geneva.  In effect they make God “depraved” as the author of mankind’s wretched state and fate, to which I assert that the only “depraved one” is Calvin himself, and those who follow him.  I believe that this doctrine is a fundamental blasphemy of the foundational character of God, “who is not willing that any should perish”.  Having said this, I ask myself that if I believe that Calvinists, including Dr. Mohler, so misunderstand the fundamental character of God, His perspective on humanity and their state, as well as what the Bible reflects on these matters, why should I regard anything he has to say on this matter?
  2. I continue with the following comments with the understanding that I do not believe Scripture indicates that God desires homosexual relations for mankind; He did mention spiritual covenants He acknowledges as marriage that describe those between a man and a woman (although same-sex marriage as opposed to their sexual activity was not addressed directly, to my knowledge), while New Testament writings allude to it being an analogy of the relationship fo Christ and the Church.  Having said that, Dr. Mohler goes so far as to suggest that opposition to the gay lifestyle is the “the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.  Is that a wee bit of a stretch?  Is that the reason Jesus came to earth to die on the cross – to stop gay marriage?  Is that what “sets men free”?  In fact, beyond His opinion on the matter, do we have evidence that this topic is a “front burner” issue for God at all, as His primary concern?  Is that the main message we want to send to a dying world about the Church – that our main focus is stopping people outside the Church from having civil rights such as gay marriage?  Is this approach and reputation with its public emphasis really being effective in winning more people to Christ as “fishers of men”?  If Christian leaders want to tell the world that this is the main focus the Church has, then they are being very successful with it, because that appears to be about all they talk about in the public, to the point that those outside the church see them as paranoid and obsessive.  I understand why many Christian ministries would beat this drum, because scaring people about those who are different has always been an effective way to raise money and become quite a “war profiteer” in the process, whether it be a “culture war” variety or some other; however, in terms of the Church in America at large, their desire to “win” on this issue is a battle that has caused them to lose a “war” of their higher calling in their “ministry of reconciliation”, not by disagreeing on homosexual activity but rather their excessive hostility and desire to control what others do with their own lives, often by the the use of Caesar’s civil statutes.
  3. Regarding scriptural exhortations, I concede that there are severe measures in the Mosaic Law for such homosexual behavior (particularly since Jewish men at the time seem to have a proclivity for debased sexual behavior with the Canaanites and their other neighbors), on par with penalties for disobeying parents, but being under a New Covenant, law and priesthood I look only to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles for my authority, and I am bound to them alone (as since I violate much of the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Sabbath) and sacrificial and dietary laws, I myself would be subject to death as well as gays if I used such criteria to judge me (as well as rejecting Christ my priest)).  Jesus interacted with many people involved in sexual immorality, developing relationships and interacting.  He acknowledged that the Woman at the Well had a very serious and unacceptable track record with marriage as well, (as well as living in a sexual sin relationship at the time) but did not dwell on it or browbeat her; He rather dropped the subject and focused on offering her “living water”.  Jesus did not condemn the immoral graft of Zaccheus, rather affiliating Himself and fellowshipping with him; in response, Zaccheus took the act of making things right as a result of exposure to Jesus’ holiness and acceptance.  Regarding homosexuality, I don’t think Jesus ever mentioned it; is that consistent with it being the “essence of the Gospel”?  Jesus did defend another woman charged by the religious leaders with sexual sin, and suggested that they were the problem and not her, while still afterwards privately speaking to her directly (and not through the mouthpieces of the religious establishment), directing to “go and sin no more” once the religious leaders no longer meddled or got between them.  He spent most of His indignance and concern about the hypocricy of the Religious Establishment.  I think Jesus would still do these same things today.
  4. I further concede that Romans 1 is probably the strongest New Testament passage used to condemn homosexual behavior, where men “left the natural use of the woman”.  However, what is usually not pointed our in the context of this passage is that this occurs because God sent this persuasion amongst the people in question because they had previously rejected God’s ‘truth” in nature by adopting pagan idol worship of stones, etc.  Is that the exact circumstances where we find ourselves today?  Furthermore, Paul adds that the other equal sinful behaviors God sends as a result are “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:29-31).  Thank goodness we have purged all of these companion behaviors equally deserving judgment from the halls of our churches!  Thank goodness our Christian leaders have rallied the nation and churches to stop the behaviors God equally hates such as “covetousness, envy, deceit, whisperers, boasters, without understanding, disobedient to parents, backbiters, etc.”, and worked Congress and lobbyists to eradicate it by statute to preserve the integrity of the Church and God’s blessings!  We wouldn’t be playing “favorites” with opposing the sins we are least susceptible to, would we?  
  5. Furthermore, Christian leader alarmists do not continue Paul’s continuation of thought from the end of Chapter 1 to the beginning of Chapter 2, where he confronts the Roman church Christians with this list and says, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:1, 3-5).  I understand this passage to be about Paul exposing the hypocrisy of church members who condemn others for these things, and then practice similar unacceptable behavior of their own kind itself; Paul says that a “hardness and impenitent heart” is the motivation for this, which is what I view in Christian media and on the Internet today, and God says that in addition to their punishment for thier sins there will be added for their hypocritical, judgmental behavior and attitude.
  6. God is not implying that the behaviors that are listed are acceptable, including homosexuality, and neither are they to me nor should they be to you, but the key verse is verse 4, that people mired in such behavior are graciously subject to the “riches of his goodness and forebearance and longsuffering”, with such “goodness of God” leading to eventual repentance, which the Church members having had received from God before, but are unwilling to grant to others.  Words such as “forbearance and longsuffering” are not in the vocabulary of most American evangelicals today; some good translations even use the world “tolerance”, which is anathema to conservative Christians but is described as an attribute of a supremely holy God, and one for which all Christians have had their “fat saved out of the fire” previously.  Christians today seem to think that God either “accepts” or “rejects” a person in their state today, with no “shadow of turning”, but scripture shows that God does a lot of tolerating of us and our behaviors that He hopes to see changed in time, and for which He gently and patiently helps us with.  For example, God permitted writs of divorcement even in the the Mosaic code, because of the “hardness of men’s hearts”, and commended kings even when they took multiple wives or did not tear down all strongholds, and even “winked” at man’s idolatrous worship (Acts 17:30); Jesus had a disfunctional apostle group (including a leader who denied Him), and disfunctional churches then and now, but He accomplishes His mission even with their shortcomings that are not resolved.  As such, there are rare behaviors and strongholds for which I do not believe we as a Church have to take immediate actions toward others, and thus give active “blessings” or “curses” against,  but rather take a “third way”, exhibiting patient forebearance, encouraging them to draw close to Jesus and His word,  while God works behind the scenes to guide and deliver.  If any of the churches I have attended had said that liars would not be tolerated and allowed to participate, I would have been out of luck, because I have told an occasional whopper, justifying it all the way, even as an adult.  Have you?  Hopefully God has helped me with the strongholds in my life, while I was in fellowship at church, and they never did protest me once.  Sometimes it was for things that I did not recognize as wrong for a long time, but in time God showed me the light, all while I was in church fellowship, and I was welcomed and nurtured during that time.  Has that happened to you?
  7. I think it is important (but even more controversial) to make a note concerning the argument from Christian leaders and pastors that the purportedly pervasive “gay agenda” will one day force churches to compromise scriptural passages on the topic of “Biblical marriage” in sermons, and modify the operation and state of the “family” from its “scriptural norms”.  Well, I hate to tell them, but “those cows have already left the barn”.  I’m sorry, but I can’t help but see such arguments of Christian groups as hypocritical, since they have already allowed feminism to accomplish all these “worst fears” to change the home and church far more than homosexuals ever will.  The feminist movement of the mid to late twentieth century has caused pastors to talk around Bible passages, from the same Bible books and authors that they quote on homosexuality, that guide women to be silent in church, asking their husbands for spiritual insight, and following his guidance as “unto the Lord”, seeing such subjection and obediance as obediance to God, and expecting God’s direction through their husband, possibly even more than through prayer itself.  I have witnessed countless sermons that in effect derived nervous laughter from pastors and statements to the effect of, “what God really meant to say was…” on female subjection, rather than sticking with the plain text, such as they do with veiled references to homosexuality.  I have witnessed Christian women, including pastor’s wives, demean their husbands at church and elsewhere, mocking them and intentionally disregarding their views or superceding them on matters large and small – a state that would shock Christ and the Apostles if they were to hear it, as being of far more concern than a stray homosexual couple that has wandered in the flock.  The family and sanctity of marriages has taken a big beating as a result, and in fact the divorce rate for Christians is about the same as outside the Church – are they to be talling the world that they are the “experts” om marriage, Biblical or otherwise? The irony is that in ignoring this clear guidance in scripture regarding Biblical male-female marital relations, these Christian leaders have evidently decided that the “sky will not fall in”, and they comfortably proceed along with their mission while disregarding or explaining away specific scripture guidelines; so then, why are they panicked about doing the same on the homosexual equation?  I certainly do not recommending going to some state of tyrannical domination over females or cruel subjugation, and I believe that God can bless marriages to a degree that are more egalitarian, even if a departure from His Biblical ideal (because of His “forebearance”), but I suspect that the greatest blessings are for those couples who conform to the Biblical model, which would make them a rarety in most churches, and subject to a lot of criticism from its prominent members. So why are they so rabidly aggressive and paranoid regarding gay relationships?  I now suspect that the masculine insecurity in Christian men today probably makes them overcompensate in being repelled by homosexual behavior, after seeing themselves as less masculine while inside today’s “feminized” Church.  They see shadows of themselves, and a subconscious mandate to compensate by being “macho” in the face of it, to the point of being “homophobic”.  That is a popular charge by those outside the church, and our general cultures also contribute (I know, coming from the South) but it is hard to explain otherwise the irrational paranoia expressed publicly from church officials and their followers, which makes the issue “front burner” rather then more legitimate menaces.  They do act such that if a homosexual person or couple would be permitted in their midst, their sexual preferencet would thus spread like smallpox amongst the flock, and engulf their youth; that’s why many choose to homeschool rather than being exposed to others who are different.  It reflects an insecurity about one’s own gender identity and the strength of traditional values in the face of others, and a senseless suspicion that the masses might discover they prefer the “alternative”.  I for one do not plan to change my heterosexuality regardless of others.  If parents are so concerned about the choices of their children, then they need to start to demonstrate healthy husband-wife relationships in their own homes to model – is that too much to ask?  
  8. The talk I hear amongst Christian leaders and officials is that a “militant gay lobby’ (which I have yet to see, but maybe exists in California and some strongholds) wants to take over every church, and probably will soon.  I am not surprised to find out that almost all of these Christian decision-makers have no gay friends; probably because they are terrified of them that it would rub off, and that they would be rotten, preachy friends tp them anyway.  While my circle of gay friends is also sadly limited as well as my knowledge, I find the knowledge of these Christian church leaders to be based solely on profiteering Christian scaremonger demogogues in the Christian media and Internet.  You will find almost universally that Christians who have some number of gay friends look at addressing this issue completely differently, even if they don’t condone the behavior, because they know these are real prople of substance and worth, and do not have horns.  These paranoid leaders never seem to ask themselves – what if some gay group gets a church – what would they do with it?  Honestly, even today any Christian, leader or otherwise, can retain their own views on the matter, if they are willing to pay the price for it (which now is basically nothing, and may never be on this issue).  However, the real issue is in trying to protect the “stuff” of the church – real estate, bank accounts and paychecks – which they think are worth fighting for from lawsuits.  “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”.  If churches met ad hoc in rented spaces of homes, without fat assets to protect from rivals, sending their collections right out the door in total to serve the field, this would not be an issue.  Could it be that God sends threats like this to liberate church people from the assets that weigh them down, and take up all their time to manage rather than minsiter?  Has this prospect (which has occurred in Israel and in the Church historically many times) ever crossed their minds?  Meanwhile, while the church is obsessed with fighting the gay boogeyman and in protecting their stockpile, destitute refugees from the world’s war zones have left all and have no where to lay their heads, black kids are gunned down in the streets, the gulf in the superwealthy and those barely surviving continues to grow, and the church has no such alarm or even time for these issues.
  9. A last point to make is that this topic is yet another one where the church and its (I hate to say it) incompetent leadership shot itself in the foot yet again, by not encouraging secular “civil unions” long ago, to give others similar civil legal rights of inheritance and property transference, tax treatment, visitation rights for the ill, etc.  Their “holier than thou” attitude could not exhibit the Golden Rule, which is way down on their list of spiritual imperatives, and did not care about these civil injustices.  In effect, they insisted on making what had been a sacred concept of “marriage” into a “government issue”, and then reaped the inevitable whirlwind for their lack of wisdom and foresight.  To be real honest, to a large extent even the Church should not be in the “marriage business” – marriage existed long before the Church, and is a covenant between two and God for which the Church has no Biblical say as to its legitimacy.  In fact, there is no Biblical citation for church weddings, or church “blessings” of them, and in particular pastor’s functioning as State officers in signing marriage licenses within the church itself.  These same enlightened Christian “leaders” not long ago said it was unbiblical for those of difference races to marry, or different social standings.  If pastors did not officiate church weddings, contrary to scripture but only in obedience to cultural tradition, they would otherwise not have to wring their hands over whot to marry, and who to restrict, gay or otherwise.  I have seen churches “bless” many a marriage which looked like a bad idea from the start, and many more for whom the wheels come off soon thereafter.  So are they the real experts on the matter?  For that matter, these are the same Christian leaders on a local or national scale (many of them) who have led us to nominate some of the most dumb, incompetent or crooked politicans – like many of them.  So why do we trust their spiritual insight on all of these harder things?  I recently read a paper from 1834 from the head of the South Carolina Baptist Convention to its governor, showing from scripture alone that slavery was acceptable to God, along with practical reasons why enslaved blacks were better off.  You better beware when religious leaders string up arguments with a daisy-chain of scripture, using “sola scriptura” to bully us into positions that run counter to and violate our own consciences – which God says He placed in all of us in nature as just a reliable a witness (if not better) as these Bible-slingers.  If you cannot look at the victims of these purported “Bible policies” in the eye and defend them and practice them in their midst, then it is probably a wrong thing to do, and these spiritual “experts” may not be hearing from the Holy Spirit.                                          

So that’s my rant for now.  It’s all stream-of-consicousness and I am sure the activists out there can pick apart any of the ideas expressed herein, but I sure feel better getting it off my chest.  There is much more to say on this matter, and I may add to this or post further on it as circumstances permit.

To God be the glory.

ADDENDUM:

After having uploaded this original post, I have noticed from some of the comments and commenters, even though it is a mixed bag of supporters, detractors and mixture, that some have taken great offense to my initial comments concerning my deep concerns about the influence of Calvinism on how some Christians look at others, and how it might influence Albert Mohler who wrote the article on homosexuality that I have commented on.  I am sorry if I offended any of you fellow Christian readers – I did not intend that. I know I expressed strong words, but I am sure I have been influenced by my studies for the current book volume on church history as it relates to holy wars I am writing, and in particular the section I recently finished in commenting on the era of Calvin and the aftermath. I could not help but observe that when Christians accept the idea that the majority of mankind has been hated by God before they breathed their first breath and will forever be hated with no recourse they have, it seems natural that such people will pursue a theocracy like Calvin’s Geneva to impose their will using a similar irrestible force they claim God uses on people per Calvinism doctrine. Per the writings I have read from Calvin and his apologists, it accordingly seems shy of mercy, empathy, and the subjection to the Golden Rule, which still applies even toward the “damned unelect”. Not only did this create an era of tyranny even against other Christians, the killing of Baptists like me and others, but also fueled the demeaning and genocidal treatment of Indians by the Puritans, by giving spiritual sanction for their eradication. I did not invent these observations; they have been pointed out by large numbers of prominent conservative Christian thinkers and historians. It is also clear that it fuels the current Calvinist-based Restoration Movement which seeks to establish a modern theocracy in America, and according to Gary North intends to eliminate the “heresy” of religious liberty.

I see how people with some degree of connection or empathy to Calvinism have become offended and taken my comments personally, and I did not mean to make it personal. However, while I have been called many bad names, having bad motives and distorting the issues, I still have not heard any direct refutations of the major tenets of Calvinism concerning God’s intention to create the majority of mankind merely to send them to Hell for His pleasure, with the other tenets of TULIP inevitably extending from it. I understand why Calvinists would not want to dwell on this, as well as the obvious conclusion that this motive matches Satan’s, and would like to re-frame it. I do not need to be held accountable for this statement; the people who believe this should be held accountable. If they deny this central aspect of predestination in Calvinism, I don’t see why they would even bother calling themselves Calvinist, because not much is left.

I also want to clarify that I do not have contempt for the little old lady who brings her covered-dish entree to the local Presbyterian church, serves her fellow members and community, and loves God the best she knows; I rather hold accountable the church leaders and other men who I believe should know better, and for whom I would like some answers on how they justify this conviction while saying that God is love and that they love their fellow man. I may have bitten off too much in explaining Mohler’s harsh position against the homosexual community as being at least partially explainable given his Calvinist connection within one post, but I still believe that a danger of considering a “damned without hope” class of people leads one to take a Pharisee-like hard line to those outside their ranks, with little empathy or mercy in many cases.

My only intention is to give food for thought and contemplation – and dialogue.

New Bombshell Investigative Report Ties Gen. Boykin to Military Intelligence Use of Christian Aid Organization in North Korea as a Funded Cover

Friends,

I just heard on CNN today a report on a new investigation by a journalistic organization called “The Intercept” that just released their findings that Gen. Jerry Boykin and his military intelligence group took over a Christian aid organization to fund and use to place intelligence gear and collect data in North Korea and elsewhere as a cover.  I found the actual amazing report, which you can read here:

Intercept Report Linking Boykin to Christian Group/Intelligence Cover

The front organization, the Humanitarian International Service Group (HISG), was founded the day before the 9/11 attack (you can see it explained here); the first website shows a video of the founder Kar Hiramine’s “Christian” calling to found it.  In 2003 Gen. Jerry Boykin, original member and eventual chief of Delta Force and Special Forces Command and now well-known evangelical speaker, joint chief with Rick Joyner of the Oak Initiative, and Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, took over the DoD Defense Intelligence Group in 2003, and decided to develop intelligence capabiltiies to rival the CIA, by using faith based front organizations, which the CIA and rest of the government had been forbidden to do after they had been caught doing it in the 1975 Church Committee hearings.  They set up other front organizations to fund it to provide cover that it was a DoD intelligence front.  One funding organization, the New Millennium Group, was operated by Army Colo. Robert Lujan, who was the legal counsel for Delta Force when Boykin operated it; he also wrote a paper called “Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army” (which you can read here from a military training site) that talks about the use of the military in the U.S., and mentions the Waco siege (where Boykin advised Janet Reno on the assault that immolated scores of civilian victims) by using Delta Force to help the BATF clear a meth lab from the Branch Davidian house and to conduct  “‘room clearing discriminate fire operations,’ termed ‘close-quarter combat’ by the military”, and Presidential use of the military to take over Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict.  He concludes by saying that “Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces…America’s leaders should recognize that the relationship between America’s Army and the American people is strong but may be compromised.”

The article also notes that the money was also funded through a small outfit called the “Working Partners Foundation”, run by Robert Simses and Yale King.  Simses is a lawyer whose bio says he worked for the Navy in the White House during the Nixon years.  Yale King was the primary man, and was said by Boykin in his book Never Surrender as being a long-time “dear friend”; he was often featured on the Oak Initiative videos with Boykin and Joyner, talking about how the govt. had stolen his car dealership, when at the same time it appears evident that the government was sending him large sums to be a laundering organization.  The article notes that the ‘Christian” organization HISG received $15 million from the Pentagon, operating in 30 countries, until a new intelligence director shut them down at the end of 2012.  The new commander, Adm. McRaven, was said to have said to “shut it down because he was nervous about the flap if it ever got out that the Pentagon had used a bunch of evangelicals and missionaries as spies”.  My review of their tax records show that the groups shut down subsequently at the beginning of 2013, and according to the tax files I have (and the article attests), the remaining assets were given back to the U.S. Treasury (!).

I had already planned to have Gen. Boykin “star” in the last book volume for me to draft of my book series The Holy War Chronicles.  I document his involvement in the torture activities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, his Delta Force activities and his “Christian” activities to turn the War on Terror into a “holy war”, where he (alongside Kanasas City Prophet Rock Joyner) advised the church to train our youth “with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other”, as he also pontificated on Jesus’ return sporting an AK-47.  I thought that this, plus his recent book allegorizing a secret organization of retired pastors and special forces soldiers that assassinated Muslim leaders and other illegal acitivities were evidence of a corrupt work of wolves masquerading as Christian sheep.  I have seen all this evidence as “red flags” that Christian leaders have not seemed to acknolwedge to date.  I have been willing to speculate that the anti-sharia movement and Religious Right para-church community at large is rife with CIA and other intelligence operatives using the Church to accomplish its agenda (the documents I have obtained from the 1975 Church Committee hearings confirm this likelihood as well), since their agendas coincide, and this piece of data strongly bolsters this possibility.  If it is true, God help us all.

I hope this concerns you as much as it does me.