Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘ronald reagan’

Regarding Carrie Prejean, Evangelicalism And The Culture War

Posted by Job on May 12, 2009

I recall a very recent incident where I purchased my first
Christian rap CD, certain that it would provide edifying entertainment for my
very young son during our frequent automobile trips. However, when the music
began to play, my son put his hands over his ears, and began yelling for me to
turn it off, the reason being “it sounds like the devil’s music.” Now
as I was very much enjoying the CD in question, I tried to explain to the child
that it was in fact Christian music. The child replied that he would much
rather listen to one of HIS CDs. So, the Christian rap went out, and one of his
several CDs of classic hymns, Negro spirituals and similar took its place,
which included “Standing On The Promises of God.” I confess to not having
learned the lyrics to this song, but I do remember something about “standing on
the promises that cannot fail.”

And now I find myself reading Pilgrim’s Progress by John
Bunyan for the first time. I not long ago passed the section where Christian
succumbed to the temptation of one Worldly Wiseman to depart from the hard path
given to him to the Celestial City by Evangelist and instead set out for what
was promised to be the easier path over Mount Sinai to Mr. Legality and his
handsome son civility in the nice village Morality. And this reminds me of the
Carrie Prejean tempest: this where beauty pageant contestant lost the Miss
America pageant (which is owned by Donald Trump, who considers twice divorced
prosperity preacher Paula White his friend and pastor) for speaking out against
homosexual marriage.

As a result, this Miss Prejean has found herself many
supporters in the evangelical Christian community for fighting the good fight
in the culture war, having had the privilege of such experiences as being
interviewed by James Dobson, speaking at a prominent evangelical Christian
university, and being a presenter for the Dove Awards. Miss Prejean’s Christian
advocates have presented her as an example of a bold Christian woman who has
risked and suffered in warfare.

While this is certainly true, as Prejean clearly lost the
Miss America title, was very nearly stripped of the Miss California title, and
has had explicit pictures (some that she acknowledges to be real, others that
she alleges are fake) released by those seeking to force the Miss California pageant
to strip her of her crown for violating her contract, I have to ask: what battle
is it that she is fighting anyway, and is it a worthwhile one?

Again, go back to “Standing On The Promises Of God.” God’s
promises cannot fail, which means that God’s battles cannot be lost, because in
God’s battles, it is not us that are fighting, but rather God Himself that
fights for us. So as long as remain obedient and faithful to scripture and
adhere to the things that Jesus Christ commanded of us, we cannot lose. Our
success is guaranteed, predetermined, predestined.

However, when we depart from the path, leave behind the
commandments of Jesus Christ, and start seeking our own agendas, failure is
inevitable. Oh, we may win a victory or two here and there, but it is only a
temporary fleeting battle won at a huge cost – not the least a great diversion
of prayers and works by well meaning Christians – in a war that will ultimately
be lost. The person who bears witness of this best is none other than James
Dobson, the very same who interviewed Prejean. Upon retiring from his leadership
of Focus On The Family, Dobson acknowledged that he, his organization and its
fellow travelers had lost every single battle, including that against
homosexual marriage, which will become legal in many parts of the country
within a few years. And let us never forget that the great legal victory that
made homosexual marriage possible was a court decision, Lawrence versus Texas,
given to us by a Supreme Court stacked with appointees of the very conservative
Republican presidents that Dobson and his peers spent a generation getting
Christians to not only vote but contribute, volunteer, fast and pray to get
elected in the first place. What do we know from this? As Jesus Christ promised
us that so long as remain faithful to Him and do His Will that we shall not
fail, the very failure of Dobson’s efforts, shows that Dobson and those like
him were never fighting the Lord’s battle to begin with.

And consider further the supreme irony: the biggest defeats
have come from the very people aligned with Dobson! Recall that Ronald Reagan,
when given the opportunity to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade,
instead put not one but two pro – abortion judges on the court, and George H.
W. Bush, who became president due to being the vice president of Reagan thanks
in no small part to people like Dobson, appointed a third pro – abortion judge,
and yes all three of those judges cast their votes in the Lawrence versus Texas
decision to pave the way for homosexual marriage as well.

So gentle Christians, what we should learn from this is that
Jesus Christ, God’s own Word and thereby God Himself, did not come to earth as
a human to be slain on a cross to pay the debt of original sin, in order to
redeem the culture. He did not do so in order to lend political support to any specific
nation, whether the United States or Israel, or any cause. The reason is that
cultures, nations, and causes are worldly things, and the result of the death
of Jesus Christ was to create the church, which is ekklesia in Greek, and
ekklesia means “called out.” What is the church called out of? The world and
worldly things. Instead of trying to change the world in some vain, idolatrous,
blasphemous quest to transform its sin and wickedness into the image of the
holiness and righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, instead of
trying to give that which is destined to die the image of that which through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ will have eternal life, the only duty that I
have seen given through Jesus Christ and His apostles and prophets to the New
Testament church is that of saving and discipling sinners. Even the good deeds
and charitable works that Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to love our
neighbors and by this way to also love Him was towards that end; acts by which
the unsaved are reached and the saved are to learn to grow in the grace and
knowledge of our only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now let it be known that evangelical Christians are supposed
to be sola scriptura Protestants. After all, the term “evangelical” was taken
up as a self – descriptive one by the Protestant Reformers. So, I challenge any
sola scriptural Protestant to identify me the Bible verse that commands
Christians to put aside the work of evangelizing the world and discipling those
who by and according to the grace and prerogative of God the Father (those that
the Father gave to the Son) respond to the gospel and start working to give the
unregenerate masses the appearance of righteousness, a form of godliness that
denies the power thereof, show it to me and I will repent of this missive. If
no such verse exists – and I have never encountered it in the New Testament –
then those who continue with this behavior should cease to call themselves sola
scriptura, which means they should cease to call themselves Protestants, which
means that they should cease to call themselves evangelical, which means that
they should cease to call themselves Christians.

This is no mere doctrinal dispute. Again, Jesus Christ gave us in His Holy Spirit – inspired word promises that work done in His Name would
never fail. The end result of not only decades of the religious right but many
centuries of church – states and church – cultures has been nothing but massive
thoroughgoing failure. If you refuse to consider me to be one qualified to
speak to this matter, then heed Søren Kierkegaard; read his Attack Upon Christendom (that is if you can abide theistic existentialism long enough to). So by committing all of these
efforts to works, by fighting all of these battles, that we claim to be in the
Name of Jesus Christ, what witness does the church bear to the promises, the
veracity, the power, the faithfulness, the very Name of Jesus Christ by which
we are saved and are to overcome death, be resurrected from the dead, and
inherit the Celestial City when these things fail? When WE fail?

Because like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress, we have abandoned
the path to the Celestial City and Mount Zion to the Morality Village, the
abode of Mr. Legality and Civility by way of Mount Sinai, that same is the way
of death. We have abandoned the counsel of the apostles, prophets and Jesus
Christ Himself for that of Worldly Wisemen politicians and hucksters, in
addition to not a few very sincere but ultimately misguided and sincere pastors
and theologians, which unfortunately included not a few of the very same
Reformers themselves, who were not long removed from the murderous yoke of the
Roman church – states themselves began drowning Anabaptists and burning
heretics. Indeed, John Bunyan himself spent twelve years in the dark prison of
a Christian nation, separated from his church and family, for the crime of preaching
the gospel.

Morality, legality and civility. Sound like “Christian
values”, “family values”, “American values”, “Judeo – Christian values”, “Judeo
– Christian heritage” and all the other buzzwords to you? It certainly sounds like
that to me. Well, those are legalism, an external righteousness of the
Pharisees, devoid of the religion of the heart that Jesus Christ gave us. It is
darkness devoid of the Light that came to this world that the darkness does not
comprehend. Of course, a person, a group, a movement, a nation can impose
morality, legality and civility for a period of time by expending no small
amount of energy or cost. Keep in mind however: such moral societies do not
have to be Christian … homosexuality, abortion, crime, divorce etc. are very
much kept under control in not a few Muslim societies, and such was also the
case in fascist regimes like those run by Pinochet and Franco. Also, a
democracy cannot maintain “moral societies” anywhere nearly as long as a
monarchy, totalitarian regime or dictatorship.

But it is only for a time. Remember Lot’s wife. Or better
yet remember the Holy Roman Empire! When Constantine allegedly converted (but in
truth began to exploit the faith for state power – including appropriating the
symbol of the Prince of Peace for warfare, a fact that we should think of when
so many evangelicals unconditionally support the war in Iraq as well as torture)
Eusebius and many other pastors and theologians of the time insisted that the
whole thing was the work of God, that Constantine’s making Christianity the
religion of the empire was part of God’s redemptive-historic plan for mankind,
and that through the Roman Empire the whole world would be subdued for Jesus
Christ. What happened? It failed. The Holy Roman Empire broke apart, falling to
the Muslims.

The reason why is that Jesus Christ did not come to earth,
conduct His ministry, die from the cross, and rise from the dead in order to
bring such things into existence. Those things are not wrapped up within the

promises of God, so they will fail. They are works of the flesh, not of the spirit, so they are vanity. You can fight it, you can delay it, but ultimately, as a dog returns to his vomit (Proverb 26:11) that which is sinful will return to sin. A system of laws and rituals can control an unregenerate person for a time, but that sinner will ultimately go back to sin just as
Pliable, Simple, Sloth, Presumption, Formalist, Hypocrisy, Mistrust, Timorous
and all the rest abandoned the true pilgrim Christian on the straight and
narrow path to the Celestial City. And as societies are by definition going to
contain large majorities of unsaved and in many instances shall be ruled by
them, they will go the same way.

This was the failure of the doctrine of the ecclesiola within
the ecclesia, the actual church within the political and cultural church-state
that was advanced in some form by Augustine (representing as he did Catholicism),
Calvin (representing church – state Protestantism) and various others, and it
is the same failure of the various modern dominionism movements -including but
certainly not limited to the religious right and some of the more robust forms
of premillennial dispensationalism and Christian Zionism – whose adherents
proclaim themselves to be taking (or taking back) cultures, nations and
ultimately the globe for Christ.

I am reminded of the words of the pastor character in Frank
Peretti’s novel The Visitation (not exactly Pilgrim’s Progress granted,
but a good read nonetheless!) who upon hearing an inexperienced and zealous
pastor state “we are taking this town for Christ” replied “not even Christ took
a town for Christ.” As Jesus Christ’s own nation, the Jews, rejected Him, what
more evidence is there that Jesus Christ did not die for a nation, a culture, a
political agenda, or any other worldly thing, but rather to redeem the church?
Now Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection did, against all odds, succeed. The
church was born, has existed for going on 2,000 years, and will live forever.
However, the failure of all of these movements proves that no matter the
sincerity, fervency, and honorable motives of many of the people who inspire
and are caught up in them, are sadly due to fail because they have no part in
Jesus Christ’s promises and thus will have no part in His resurrection.

I keep hearing Christians speak of how this can be changed
with a revival, and have taken it upon themselves to try to initiate one. They
recall how society was transformed in America and Britain through the Great
Awakenings, and long for another to happen. I remember the claims that great
outpouring of national unity and people returning to churches after September
11th 2001 may spark just such a revival, a return of this nation to
its “Christian values and heritage.” It was easy to suffer such fantasies when
George W. Bush was in office. Well, not only did George W. Bush prove to be
someone who does not believe that the Bible is literally true and the final
authority and also that Muslims and Christians (and presumably other religions
as well) all pray to the same god, but this nation is now saddled with a
president about whom no one can entertain such delusions. Alas, it was just
another failure by people who were never seeking the true Will of Jesus Christ
to begin with.

While Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the other
revivalists of these awakenings may have had some state – church or state –
culture sympathies, the reason why their revivals as well as the missionary
revival started by William Carey and Adoniram Judson and before them Zinzendorf,
Spener and the Moravians succeeded was because their aim was to preach the
gospel and save souls! Their goals were not social or political but spiritual.
That was why they could not fail. They accomplished the results that they were
seeking because the results were the Lord adding to the church such as should
be saved (Acts 2:47). And yes, that verse does say THE LORD adding to the
church, not man through his own efforts doing so. Why? Because as stated
earlier … it was the Lord’s doing, the Lord’s work, the Lord’s battle to begin
with. Do the Lord’s will, and the Lord fights for you. Do your own will, and the
Lord fights against you. Do you deny this? Well then ask King Saul. His
kingdom, his portion was taken from him and given to another because he stopped
fighting the Lord’s battle the Lord’s way and started fighting his battles his
way. Instead of establishing God’s kingdom, it became about Saul’s kingdom.
When Saul’s son asked him for what cause did he seek the life of David, who had
never done any harm to Saul, King Saul cursed his son, calling him the son of a
dog, and asked “don’t you realize that as long as David lives you will never
have MY KINGDOM?” But it was never Saul’s kingdom to give. Saul and his sons
died, God’s kingdom went to David, and through the One Jesus Christ who
descended from David, it will last forever.

So, Christian, are you laboring for Mr. Legality with
Civility in the village Morality for things that, like the Holy Roman Empire,
the Reformed church – states, and Saul’s kingdom, will not last because they
are of this world and are things that Revelation 20 and 21 states will be
destroyed with fire and replaced with a new heaven and a new earth? Or are you
going to love Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments, and thereby laboring
for things that will last forever, in the Celestial City where the rust and
moth cannot destroy?

Gentle Christian, I sincerely entreat and implore you to
turn aside from all that which is pertaining to Mr. Legality, Civility, and the
village Morality … things of Sinai that will fail. Instead, join Pilgrim on the
narrow path to the Celestial City so that your works will last forever. In
closing, let me give you some words by Russell K. Carter, circa 1886.

  1. Standing on the promises of Christ
    my King,
    Through eternal ages let His praises ring,
    Glory in the highest, I will shout and sing,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Refrain:
    Standing, standing,
    Standing on the promises of God my Savior;
    Standing, standing,
    I’m standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises that
    cannot fail,
    When the howling storms of doubt and fear assail,
    By the living Word of God I shall prevail,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises I now can
    see
    Perfect, present cleansing in the blood for me;
    Standing in the liberty where Christ makes free,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises of Christ
    the Lord,
    Bound to Him eternally by love’s strong cord,
    Overcoming daily with the Spirit’s sword,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises I cannot
    fall,
    List’ning every moment to the Spirit’s call,
    Resting in my Savior as my all in all,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Advertisements

    Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

    Exposing Ronald Reagan Idolatry: REAGAN WAS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE!

    Posted by Job on September 5, 2008

    Is Bush Better Than Reagan?

    Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 29, 2008 09:34 AM
    Ronald Reagan has the reputation of a tax-cutter because of his stirring blarney, and media lies. But in office, whether as governor of California or president of the US, he raised taxes and expanded the government. His first major act as governor was to enact withholding for state income taxes. When people had to come up with the whole amount on April 15th, it was a huge barrier to tax increases. Reagan, like Milton Friedman at the federal level in WWII, made possible a vast increase in taxes with withholding, and then he signed the tax increases while increasing state spending. The late John Schmitz opposed this conservative fraud, and was demonized for being anti-Reagan.

    When Reagan was president, he cut taxes once, and raised them six times. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens, ballooned government spending, and vastly increased the deficit. He was such a big spender that Tip O’Neill’s congress passsed less of it that he requested. I’ll never forget one of Reagan’s rare vetoes: of a foreign aid bill that was too small. He was also a militarist and imperialist, a neocon, really, though Bush makes him look good in this area by comparison.

    One of Reagan’s federal tax increase bills “closed loopholes” in many areas, and abolished the tax exemption for health insurance premiums. Now Bush want to undo that, he said last night. Indeed, we should undo all of Reagan’s tax increases.

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

    While Tonex Is Apostate The Wife That He Discarded Is Fighting The Good Fight!

    Posted by Job on August 23, 2008

    Another update from Gay Christian Movement Watch. Please note that we are seeing more and more of the evil of the evangelical religious right hero Ronald Reagan. First, the fellow signs into law the nation’s most liberal abortion measure BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Then, he appoints a bunch of socially liberal judges to the California bench, and does the same with the federal and Supreme Courts. Then, I find out that the fellow was nothing but a mole for the Vatican, implementing their agenda in the United States. Part of that agenda was the amnesty for illegal immigrants program, and increasing globalization. And now, it comes that he signs a no – fault divorce law in California, helping set the stage for the gay rights movement today (high divorce rates among heterosexuals has been one of the most effective rhetorical devices for gay rights activists). And not only was his wife a necromancer, but he himself participated in some of her “psychic readings.” And no, Reagan did not propose a law OR push an executive order to stop federal dollars from going to Planned Parenthood either. Nor did he lift a finger to help Operation Rescue as the media, courts, and politicians were destroying it. My goodness, if Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat had done one tenth of this wickedness these same religious right phonies would be shouting it from the rooftoops! It is past time that Christians start challenging our brothers and sisters, pastors and leaders over their continued affection for Reagan.

    Ex-wife of Tonex: gay marriage part of satan’s agenda

    Very interesting article written by Yvette (Graham) Williams (pictured at left with Tonex in 2002), the former Mrs. Tonex. Yvette was divorced from Tonex in 2005 and has since focused on recovering and speaking out against divorce. This is an excerpt from a larger article entitled “Satan’s agenda exposed.”   Although the article uses strong language to rebuke divorce among God’s people, Williams highlights the proliferation of homosexual marriage as an example of what we can expect as continue to lower the standards and disobey God’s Word.  It is reflects the same syllogism of Romans 1. The peice was written in late 2007, but is very insightful and sound, especially in light of her former husband’s now growing embrace of homosexuality and the gay christian movement.

    Satan’s next move was covered under the cloth of equal rights and privileges for homosexuals.  He wanted the stage appropriate set homosexuality’s place of prominence and in an effort to garner acceptance by voluntary action or by force, coalitions of gays and lesbians began rallying for equal rights to live as they chose and have the laws of America say so.  I am not going into great details on how they’ve maneuvered their way in to prominence through coalition building and joining their voices to gain attention from political powers, you can research this on your own.  What I will say is their collective initiatives and Babel-like intention to build their tower of strength has become the foundation from which they stand on major platforms and demand political attention including the legal rights to live as they please and have the same benefits as those of heterosexuals.  So, as you can see, Satan is patient but persistent in waging his war against marriage as we know God intended!

    Let’s look at the pawns he uses next in his ploy to overthrown heterosexual marriages: celebrities and other people of renown.  Satan knows the power of media and celebrity. He is the master of imagery, and understanding human nature and the psyche of people, he knows men and woman of all ages are intrinsically influenced by the media and what popular people are wearing, saying and doing.  Whether we believe it or not, media influences the way people live and the decisions they make, and unless each of us takes care to pay attention to our thoughts and intentions, we too walk that fine line of crossing over into living our lives in accordance with the ways of television’s elite; this includes the lifestyles of politicians, sports personalities, actors, musicians and singers who are constantly seen in front of the camera.

    Having celebrities come out the closet and pronounce their lifestyle brings more attention to Satan’s idea of garnering equal rights and privileges and ultimately the right for same-sex couples to marry.  In an article titled Lesbian Life, from online website About.com, it listed women from politicians to sports persons, television personalities, etc., who have announced they are lesbian to the world.  Ellen DeGeneres (actor/talk show host) came out in 1996 just after playing a lesbian role on TV, she was promoted to now have her own talk show, Rosie O’Donnell (actor/talk show host) came out in part to help fight for the rights of gay and lesbian partners, Melissa Etheridge (singer) came out in 1993 at the Presidential Inauguration, Nelly Furtado (singer) came out as bisexual and wants her own gay pride parade, Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer is the highest ranking military official to come out while in the service and there are many others.  On this same website, an article, The Hottest Gay Celebrities listed men who have come out of the closet, including Randy Harrison (actor) who played a gay coming of age role in the movie “Queer as Folk”, Kyan Douglas (grooming guru) of the popular TV show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, Nate Berkus (decorator), often seen and has the stamp of approval from Oprah and his segment, on Oprah’s Decorate With Nate, and others.  These celebrity television appearances and coming out of the closet moments have proven positive motivation for towards the enemy’s ultimate goal and to the dismay of the Body of Christ, but what’s more palatable to his appetite is the parade of failed heterosexual marriages.  He just sinks his teeth into showcasing the fact that heterosexual marriages aren’t working so why not give same-sex marriages a go.”

    Her article below:

    Satan’s Agenda Exposed- By Yvette Williams

     Satan’s Agenda Exposed

    October 31, 2007

    By:  Yvette Williams

     As Christians, we know the scripture backwards and forward that says the devil is crafty and cunning and goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.  We know that he is subtle and is a seducer of the feebleminded, simple and those who are not on guard against his wiles.  As the Body of Christ, I see his agenda is to destroy what God calls honorable; marriage!  He said in his sight marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled.  Satan is anti-God and any God-institution established.  That being the case, I wonder why aren’t we more vigilant in fighting for the family, for marriages and to retain a voice of reason in the world.  We have spent enough time fighting over doctrines, over women wearing make-up and pants in the church pews and over denominational differences.  If the common denominator is Jesus Christ that should be enough for the whole body to come together and put its strengths and focus where needed.  I suggest we focus on restoration of the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman because clearly the enemy is out to establish marriage between same sexes and (forgive my Ebonics) that ain’t right! 

    Satan wants marriage as we know it today, between a man and a woman to be done away with or at best have same-sex marriage as viable option.  He wants to introduce as a way of life, same-sex marriages to go along side of God’s institution and he has carefully marked out his plans for seeing his agenda rise above God’s order.  You ask how, I’ll give you some things to consider how he has carefully mapped out his strategy and how we have been either oblivious to it or avoided it as an option altogether, after all, God would never let that happen.  Satan is brilliant…He has taken the opportunity to stage his fight carefully, first with making divorce easier to come by whereby weakening the institution of marriage itself.  His next move, disguised under the mask of prejudice and the need for acceptance of all races and lifestyles, he’d introduce the need to make homosexuality legal and from there popularize homosexuality as the “in thing” by encouraging people to “come out the closet” in public and the next major blow he imagined was maximizing the media attention on divorces of heterosexual greats. 

    In 1953 Oklahoma became the first state to introduce ‘no-fault divorce’, and in 1970 then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed no-fault divorce into law in California; from there most other states followed suit.  Here’s some interesting information about California’s no-fault law.  It was drafted by Assemblyman, James Hayes.  According to Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry, Assemblyman Hayes “was responsible for doggedly pursuing [the no-fault divorce] bill because he was facing a divorce and he didn’t like the rules at the time.  Today we’d call the conflict of interest but clearly, his agenda was to change the rules to benefit his personal dilemma.  It became too easy for people to walk away from their marriages with no grounds other than they no longer wanted the marriage.  With this law coming into play, Satan had the foot hole he so desperately needed to etch his way in to make his next move.

     According to The Journal of Marriage and the Family, the divorce rate soared by 250% over a twenty-year period from 1960 to 1980 and I believe the implications for this increase was the passing of the ‘no fault divorce’ law in almost all of the united states of America.

     Satan’s next move was covered under the cloth of equal rights and privileges for homosexuals.  He wanted the stage appropriate set homosexuality’s place of prominence and in an effort to garner acceptance by voluntary action or by force, coalitions of gays and lesbians began rallying for equal rights to live as they chose and have the laws of America say so.  I am not going into great details on how they’ve maneuvered their way in to prominence through coalition building and joining their voices to gain attention from political powers, you can research this on your own.  What I will say is their collective initiatives and Babel-like intention to build their tower of strength has become the foundation from which they stand on major platforms and demand political attention including the legal rights to live as they please and have the same benefits as those of heterosexuals.  So, as you can see, Satan is patient but persistent in waging his war against marriage as we know God intended!

     Let’s look at the pawns he uses next in his ploy to overthrown heterosexual marriages: celebrities and other people of renown.  Satan knows the power of media and celebrity. He is the master of imagery, and understanding human nature and the psyche of people, he knows men and woman of all ages are intrinsically influenced by the media and what popular people are wearing, saying and doing.  Whether we believe it or not, media influences the way people live and the decisions they make, and unless each of us takes care to pay attention to our thoughts and intentions, we too walk that fine line of crossing over into living our lives in accordance with the ways of television’s elite; this includes the lifestyles of politicians, sports personalities, actors, musicians and singers who are constantly seen in front of the camera.

     Having celebrities come out the closet and pronounce their lifestyle brings more attention to Satan’s idea of garnering equal rights and privileges and ultimately the right for same-sex couples to marry.  In an article titled Lesbian Life, from online website About.com, it listed women from politicians to sports persons, television personalities, etc., who have announced they are lesbian to the world.  Ellen DeGeneres (actor/talk show host) came out in 1996 just after playing a lesbian role on TV, she was promoted to now have her own talk show, Rosie O’Donnell (actor/talk show host) came out in part to help fight for the rights of gay and lesbian partners, Melissa Etheridge (singer) came out in 1993 at the Presidential Inauguration, Nelly Furtado (singer) came out as bisexual and wants her own gay pride parade, Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer is the highest ranking military official to come out while in the service and there are many others.  On this same website, an article, The Hottest Gay Celebrities listed men who have come out of the closet, including Randy Harrison (actor) who played a gay coming of age role in the movie “Queer as Folk”, Kyan Douglas (grooming guru) of the popular TV show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, Nate Berkus (decorator), often seen and has the stamp of approval from Oprah and his segment, on Oprah’s Decorate With Nate, and others.  These celebrity television appearances and coming out of the closet moments have proven positive motivation for towards the enemy’s ultimate goal and to the dismay of the Body of Christ, but what’s more palatable to his appetite is the parade of failed heterosexual marriages.  He just sinks his teeth into showcasing the fact that heterosexual marriages aren’t working so why not give same-sex marriages a go.

     Clearly, Satan has reared his ugly head again with the very public demise of two powerful marriages in Christendom.  Thursday, August 23, 2007, Randy and Paula White announced to their approximately 23,000 member church their plan to divorce.  Citing no third parties on either side that resulted in their collective decision, they explained that they’ve just grown apart and thus the reason they are divorcing.  Friday, September 7, 2007, Juanita Bynum announces she filed for divorce from her husband of five years after an alleged brutal attack by her estranged husband, Bishop Thomas Weeks III on the night of August 23rd.  Bynum and Weeks were noted to have been separated for 3 months prior to this event. Both couples have great ministries, with followers of every race, age and denomination attending their churches and conferences.

     

    Both of these couples are renowned in both Christendom and in the secular world for what they say, do and preach.  They are public figures seen on television and heard over the radio and how they live their lives directly affects their followers and the secular world watching them.  How their marriages have ended is a target for proponents of same sex marriage who will use their divorces as leverage to garner rights for gays and lesbians to marry.  After all, how can the church protest and tell law makers, politicians and proponents of same sex marriage that same-sex marriage is wrong when their heterosexual marriages are ending in divorce by as much as 50 percent or more? 

     

    We have got to get our voice back.  We have got to regain our composure as the Body of Christ and realize God loves and established the institution of marriage.  We can no longer diminish the voice of reason, the voice of the church to rebut against homosexuality and same-sex marriage by allowing the demise of marriages to continue.  As a whole, we must repent, turn around and take a stand and fight again for marriage.  The church as a whole and people individually must take a stand and engage in warfare that includes a balanced mix of prayer and work towards health marriages.  We must pray for marriages.  Couples actively working at having healthy relationships are key components to waging an effective war!  Let the war begin today to combat the enemy of God’s institution of marriage.  Married couples, work on your marriage!  You have the power within you to have a great marriage but it takes the power of two to make it happen!

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

    More Evidence That Ronald Reagan Was A New Ager From Roman Catholic Mystic Peggy Noonan

    Posted by Job on June 22, 2008

    Again, how many religious right types know that this stuff is true and refused to talk about it? Oh yes, and this also provided still more proof by virtue of Noonan’s protestations of being “offended” by Mike Huckabee that the Vatican is more than willing to use evangelicals to get into power (just as they are willing to use blacks, Hispanics, and liberal Jews in the Democratic Party) but have no intention of ever allowing evangelicals to actually take power. Huckabee knows this, which was why he resisted entreaties from the Republican Party to get him to try to pick up a DEMOCRATIC Senate seat in Arkansas, or go be their Pat Robertson 2.0 (i.e. the guy who raises money for the GOP and herds evangelicals into the voting booths like cattle for a party that ignores them). What was hilarious is how Noonan declared herself to be “offended” by Huckabee’s allegedly Catholic and Mormon baiting tactics in Iowa. Was she ever offended by Ronald Reagan’s race baiting in 1980 and 1984, the whole courting segregationist thing plus the urban legends about welfare queens? Of course not. Always question Christian leaders that refuse to tell the truth about Ronald Reagan and will not tell the truth about the Vatican. 

    www.wwd.com/article/print/125874

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

    John McCain’s First Wife: Insight For EVANGELICALS On Why He Left Her

    Posted by Job on June 9, 2008

    First off, the Daily Telegraph, a liberal British paper, made the headline, not me. But since the religious right media isn’t going to tell you about this, we have to get our news from somewhere. By the way: this is merely the first of a bunch of stories about McCain’s personal background that is going to come out. And you can bet that none of the Christian news services or outlets that are wedded to and bought and owned by the Republican Party, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center For National Policy, and similar groups are going to be the ones to tell their evangelical charges about it, just as you have never heard from any of those people about the things that George W. Bush really does.

    The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

    Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain. 

    While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

    McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

    But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

    And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

    She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

    But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

    When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

    Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self. Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

    For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

    Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’ she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce. ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.’ 

    Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

    McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

    He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.

    But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’. His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.

    Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain. It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.

    ‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.

    The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.

    He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin. What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake. Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

    It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house. It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen. After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’

    H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care. When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again. But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

    He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water. ‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles. 

    Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing. But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg. 

    McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis. He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

    In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage. Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide. ‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

    Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’ Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

    Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed. McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

    A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’ Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate. 

    And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife. Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

    ‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. ‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

    ‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

    One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’ 

    Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her. Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

    But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics. ‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said. ‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’

    Keep in mind: these same liberals held these details from the American people during the eight years that they were building him up as the foil for George W. Bush. Now that the globalist elite wants Obama to follow in the footsteps of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, they are letting the cat out of the bag. It will be curious to see what the “conservatives” that spent eight years oh so offended at the behavior of one William Jefferson Clinton despite knowing full well that Washington D.C. is nothing but one big bathhouse and cesspool are going to say now.

    Posted in Christianity, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

    (Illegal) Immigrants Keeping Roman Catholic Church From Losing Its American “Market Share”

    Posted by Job on April 11, 2008

    Save the ILLEGAL portion of the title, it was Reuters’ words, not mine … “and immigration is keeping the church from losing its “market share” in the highly competitive field of faith in America.”  I have to tell you … Ronald Reagan in the 1980s did two things for the Vatican (among many others) that would have been impossible for a liberal Democrat to do. He established official diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and approved a “guest worker program” for illegal Hispanic immigrants. Were it not for illegal immigration, the religious landscape of America would look quite different from how it does now! I honestly do recall that conservatives attempted to justify Reagan’s blind eye to illegal immigration by claiming that Hispanics, being hard working family oriented Roman Catholics and all, would “naturally” align with Republicans, who would then use them to offset the Democratic Party’s advantage with blacks. When you look at how formerly solid Republican states like Arizona, California, Illinois, and New Jersey have gone Democratic since thanks to the huge influx of Hispanic voters, and more areas that were at least swing states are now even more solidly Democratic for the same cause … well there is a reason why Reagan has to serve as a mythic legend in right wing circles instead of an actual human being, because regarding him as a mere mortal would mean at some point being forced to examine his actual record, and not just on immigration but also judicial appointments, abortion and other religious right issues, terrorism and the Middle East, taxes and spending, etc. The amazing thing is that even a lot of theologically conservative pastors that were driven from the Republican Party and the religious right by George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and similar still keep the Reagan myth going, claiming that “the party has lost its way and betrayed ‘the Reagan revolution.'” I guess a lot of us still need on our myths! Well let me tell those people something:

    1. Reagan put two pro – abortion judges on the Supreme Court, and at least one of those (O’Connor) when he had a solid pro – life majority in the Senate. Reagan got away with this by claiming that he just had to have the first female justice on the Supreme Court, as if feminism and civil rights were oh so important to the fellow that gave a bunch of racists like Ed Meese and Pat Buchanan prominent posts in his administration. Oh yes, in addition to abortion, O’Connor went on to make a ton of other decisions to further the globalist agenda.

    2. “Reaganomics”, the ridiculous idea that it was OK to run huge deficits so long as the economy was growing, and that indeed deficit spending would stimulate economic growth, greatly accelerated our already developing economic problems as well as helped create a culture of irresponsibility and criminality in government and Wall Street, setting the stage for the destruction of our economy so that we would need to turn to the global political and financial interests – including China – to stay afloat. Reagan did trim the fat around the edges of some social welfare spending, but accomplished absolutely no real or lasting victory for smaller government or lower spending.

    3. Ever hear of our “enemies” Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Under the Reagan administration, both were our allies that we supplied with plenty of training and weapons. We should have taken care of both fellows after the Soviets were driven back from Afghanistan (assuming that keeping the Soviets out of Afghanistan was ever a prevailing interest in the first place, but then again Reagan did inherit that strategy from JIMMY CARTER), but we didn’t. The great “friend of Israel and terrorism fighter” Reagan left a huge mess in the Middle East. All of his strategies and policies failed or backfired, and he lost virtually every military confrontation in the region, unless you are willing to settle for killing the infant child of the ruler of Libya in an airstrike as a victory (it was illegal to kill Qaddafi himself, so since we knew from intelligence which side of the house Qaddafi slept on and his child slept on, and about the time that Qaddafi tended to go to bed, we bombed the bedroom of an infant child because THAT was “legal”).

    4. And yes, conservatives, Ronald Reagan would have supported the “comprehensive illegal immigration reform bill with amnesty/path to citizenship” also. And yes, Reagan would have refused to build the border fence just as George W. Bush CRIMINALLY has.

    But go on below to read the article below, which contains just a little of the true legacy of “the gipper”, the fellow whom the right would have you believe teamed up with Margaret Thatcher and POPE JOHN PAUL to defeat the awesome power of the Soviet Union’s command economy.

    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24064883

    Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

    The Mormon Self – Victimization Goes Into Overdrive Over Mitt Romney

    Posted by Job on February 8, 2008

    In it Mormons complain “It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don’t just belong to another American denomination!” This article is fascinating: sltrib.com/ci_8200642

    Now I was made aware by one of my books on Mormonism (Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson of the Mormonism Research Ministry founded and run by former Mormons) that a major tactic of this false religion to retain its members is to cultivate a sense of victimization and persecution. That article above is a clear example of it. It takes the position that the sole reason why Mitt Romney lost was anti – Mormon bigotry. Contrast this with a more factual article msnbc.msn.com/id/23064098/ that does not even begin to list all the problems that Romney had as a candidate that were made even worse by the many bad choices that he made in the campaign. And even if he had been a better candidate: so what? Strong candidates lose all the time. Bob Graham was the most qualified Democratic Presidential candidate since Harry Truman. Ever heard of him? Exactly. In 1996 the best GOP candidate was Phil Gramm, and the guy didn’t win a single state.

    But alas, keeping their victimization cult alive to retain their members is what they do. Here is one blatant lie: “It’s OK to challenge our beliefs but no one wants to be treated like they’re weird” claims Nancy Dredge, publisher of a Mormon women’s magazine. Except that during the entire campaign, Mitt Romney and his many backers with their various religious and political motivations claimed challenging his beliefs was 1. anti – Mormon bigotry and 2. an unconstitutional religion test for public office. Now I can understand people who hold that not voting for him solely on the basis that he is a Mormon is hypocritical since Christians have no problem routinely voting for people that are not born – again. But Romney and his allies (not all of whom were Mormon, I have already pointed out that his earliest and most prominent enablers in this strategy were Roman Catholics) chose to try to force Protestant Christians to accept Mormonism as legitimate Christianity and brand them as both bigots and traitors to the cause of conservatism if they objected. If you believe that Mike Huckabee’s saying “don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers” was wrong, then so was the Romney strategy of using the same thug pressure tactics of the radical left to silence everyone unwilling to accept their “if he says that Jesus is his savior then you need to HAVE him if not in the theological context then at least in the political one.” (By the way our experience with pro – abortion pro – homosexual pro – war pro – corporate welfare pro – state George Walker Bush and the even more problematic Mike Huckabee ought to show us that we should be no more blithely trusting or accepting of professed Protestant Christians that claim Jesus as their savior.) And in that was a strong undercurrent of resentment. They were exuding the attitude “Hey, racists sacrificed by accepting blacks, Roman Catholics sacrificed by accepting Protestants, why can’t Protestants sacrifice for the cause and accept Mormons?” Well, what white voter would accept a black candidate if he claimed to be white? What Roman Catholic voter would accept a Presbyterian candidate that claimed to be Roman Catholic?

    Claiming that Protestants should have been willing to accept Romney’s claim that he was “a non – Catholic Christian just like them” just because racists were so graciously willing to accept blacks and Roman Catholics were so graciously willing to accept Protestants only shows their true attitudes towards blacks and Protestants. It shows that the racists REALLY don’t regard blacks as being equal or deserving of equal status and that Roman Catholics REALLY do not accept the legitimacy of Protestant Christianity, but are wearing a mask, maintaining a public facade in the interests of both the conservative movement and the larger national interest. Now I am not saying that if these folks ever get in power they will brutally repress blacks and Protestants, only that their words and behavior exposes the true contents of their hearts, and that is all the more reason why succumbing to the tactics of Romney and his backers would have been wrong, a betrayal of the truth of the Bible.

    So, what we get is blatant lies like this: “As long as the Republican Party is primarily a party with an evangelical base, I don’t see how any Mormon could do any better than Romney,” said Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. “You can’t explain how a relatively competent, successful businessman and governor could do so badly in the Southern primaries without pointing to his Mormonism.” First of all, the Republican Party does not have a primarily evangelical base. Evangelicals make up at best 25% of the Republican Party. Second, is Mitt Romney the first successful businessman and governor ever to fail in a Presidential run? Or even for Senate? Dan Quayle, a former senator and vice President, couldn’t even get elected governor of Arizona! Third: Mitt Romney didn’t only have problems in the south. People, the guy only won 7 states: 3 of them (Michigan, Massachusetts, Utah) he was the home state candidate, and most of the rest were caucus states that he bought using his organization. But Iowa and the south are the only states were Mormons can blame his losses on evangelicals, and evangelicals are the only group that Mormons can play the bigotry card against, so they are using it.

    And when I say “play” I am serious. Go back to Wolfe’s statement “as long as the Republican Party is a party with primarily an evangelical base.” For quite awhile, I have seen Mormon blogs not so subtly suggest that the GOP dump the evangelicals in favor of a Mormon – Roman Catholic alliance. By holding a prominent position at Roman Catholic Boston College, which has the distinction of being the only major conservative Roman Catholic university left after Notre Dame, Georgetown, Catholic University, etc. have gone liberal in recent decades, Wolfe is precisely the sort that could work to make such a thing happen. Now were I still a Republican, I would care a lot more about such talk. As it happens, I am only keeping an eye on it because of the implications on where our country is going. The Democratic Party is what it is, and so if the GOP becomes the Roman Catholic – Mormon party (with just enough evangelical useful idiots to make it electable) well maybe that would have the positive effect of opening a lot of Christian eyes as to where they should store their hope and treasure.

    Back to “It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don’t just belong to another American denomination.” Add that to “I don’t see how any Mormon could do any better than Romney.” What do you get? That even the most regrettable rhetoric from the publicity – seeking grandstanders was still correct: Romney was running as the representative of his faith not only to promote it but to promote it as Christianity, and that their many vehement denials were simply LIES. I suppose that by pointing that out I am an anti – Mormon bigot, because the various pro – Romney blogs have all coordinated amongst themselves (and almost certainly with the Romney campaign) to contrive the notion that “flip – flop” is an anti – Mormon code word because of the false “Mormons lie” charge embedded in the evangelical mindset due to their negative interactions with a few poorly trained Mormon missionaries, and that a recent Vanderbilt study proves it. Trust me, I am not making this up, and it reached the point where even some of the non – Mormon political outlets were repeating the “flip – flop equals evangelical anti – Mormon bigotry” line. It had just started to catch on, and had Romney done well enough on Super Tuesday to remain in the race, you’d be hearing a lot more of it, no so much because non – Mormons actually believe it, but because they were grasping onto any reason they could to justify not holding Romney’s politically timed and untested transformation from RINO to Reagan Republican against him. Desperate times call for desperate measures!

    But the key thing to take from that Salt Lake Tribune article were the not – so – subtle hints that Mormons are now going to shift gears and use different tactics in the future, and not just in politics. Whatever those tactics are, they are going to be very aggressive and not only in the political and religious spheres, but also in the secular mainstream. As an increasing number of folks are finding Mormons preferable to Christians for a variety of reasons (there were TONS of “I would personally rather live next to or hire a Mormon than an evangelical” types of comments circulating out there), so I am of the opinion that they are going to be rather effective. Whatever they are, Christians are going to have to be ready for it.

    We have to recognize how much success the Mormons have already had. Mormons are only a tiny percentage of the population: 7 million of the 300 million Americans. Yet they are heavily disproportionately represented in some highly visible (business, entertainment, media, sports, academia, politics) and have had a huge impact on our culture. And realize that they are just getting started. Incidentally, for you evangelical Reagan supporters, two Mormons served in his cabinet. One, the convert from Roman Catholicism Bay Buchanan (the sister of ardent segregationist racist Pat Buchanan!) was one of two Mormon Treasury secretaries that we had (the other, Ivy Priest, served under Eisenhower) AND DID SO AT THE AGE OF THIRTY – TWO. The other was secretary of Education Terrell Bell.

    Now I had always felt that Reagan did more for the Roman Catholics than he did for evangelicals. Now you can add Mormons to that list. So evangelicals, what do you think of Ronald Reagan and your religious right now?

    Posted in bigotry, christian right, Christianity, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, GOP, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, religious right, Republican | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

    Mike Huckabee’s Religious Right Crackup: Why The GOP Establishment Truly Loathes Him

    Posted by Job on December 21, 2007

    First, you had Roman Catholics declare that evangelicals had BETTER back Mitt Romney or be declared bigots. Second, you had evangelicals going after Mitt Romney. Third you have Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Fourth you had Mike Huckabee’s rise after his outstanding debate performances, especially the Youtube one. Fifth, you had the hateful Mormon reaction towards Huckabee’s rise, aimed not so much towards Huckabee as his evangelical supporters. Sixth, you had the GOP leadership attacking Huckabee for basically having the same positions as Giuliani and Romney (yes, we know Giuliani openly courted illegal immigrants and blocked enforcement attempts by federal officials, and that Mitt Romney raised taxes and negotiated and signed a $50 abortion universal healthcare plan that will lead to more tax increases in the future, but it was OK when THEY do it because THEY are so like electable or principled or something and Huckabee is not!). Now, we have the clearest example of why the GOP establishment hates Huckabee: the tiff between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. Now the last Vatican Council closed the rift between Catholics and mainline Protestants. Billy Graham and religious right politics brought Catholics and mainstream respectable evangelicals closer together.

    But it appears that Huckabee has no interest in being a mainstream respectable evangelical leader like Billy Graham, who sat right before Richard Nixon and did not raise a single voice of objection or even silently get up and leave when Nixon was ranting racist statements in his presence (please keep in mind that Graham is regarded as a civil rights leader) against not only blacks but also the low income whites that made up the bulk of Graham’s most faithful followers. Now if Huckabee were willing to play ball, he could have simply gone to the powers that be and gotten himself a fistful of cash. As it is, Huckabee is going his own way, and it is not a way that pleases the Vatican.

    Take Mike Huckabee’s visit to the “church” of John Hagee, whom IndependentConservative has labeled the biggest heretic of 2007 for his preaching a form of dispensational pretribulationism that is so extreme that it denies Christianity. Now Hagee does appropriately oppose the Vatican, but only in a distorted fashion that supports his own devil’s doctrines. But even that is too much for the supporters of the replacement of God on earth, so now we have the National Review’s token minority, Roman Catholic Kathryn Jean Lopez, demanding that Mike Huckabee NOT preach at John Hagee’s church on the grounds that it would divide the Republican Party. Quoting Lopez with my comments, as usual, in italics and parentheses:

    With great power comes great responsibility. And Mike Huckabee, once and future Baptist preacher, could afford to watch where he’s taking to the pulpit. That’s “future” because the former evangelical pastor will be at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church on Sunday. According to a San Antonio Huckabee meetup site, Huckabee will be speaking at two Sunday services at the Texas megachurch. He’ll be making the appearances just days after he told CBS News that “It’s not like [I’m] stepping from the pulpit last Sunday and running for president.”

    But maybe next Sunday . . .

    The problem with this particular church is its pastor. It is no secret that evangelicals and Catholics have their theological differences. If we didn’t we’d all be under the same church roof like once upon a time. But Hagee has been particularly outspoken beyond his Cornerstone Church, as a supporter of Israel and a prolific writer. His activism has brought some attention to his views on the Catholic Church. In Hagee’s “black history” of the Catholic Church, for example, Catholics were far from only guilty of sins of omission when it came to the Nazis, they also gave Hitler his blueprint, according to Hagee. In a speech this year, Hagee pointed to the Catholic Church as having provided the jumping-off point for the Holocaust, claiming: “That was really drawn by the Roman church. [Hitler] did not do anything differently. He only did it more ruthlessly, and on a national scale.” (This is where Hagee’s doctrinal history is wrong; the Lutheran Church in Germany, which by that time had become a typical secular liberal “Christian values” state church, fully endorsed and supported Hitler to the point where they proclaimed that God had raised up Hitler to restore Germany to greatness. Liberal theologian Karl Barth’s claim to fame was opposing the Lutheran Church in this matter and being proven right by history, even if Barth was right on little else.) The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has long been concerned about Hagee’s rhetoric, calling him a “veteran bigot,” accusing him of distorting Catholic teachings and misrepresenting Church history. The League has cautioned that, “Tone matters … and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.”

    Hagee is politically active and has had candidates at his church before and is likely to again. It’s probably only natural that Huckabee would be among them. And certainly other candidates have courted or been endorsed by religious figures who are not known for their ecumenical diplomacy. But after weeks of being a divider, not a uniter — pretending to innocently raise questions about Mormon theology to a New York Times reporter, informing Today Show viewers that he is really the choice for evangelicals — Huckabee should be sensitive to his unnecessarily exclusionary tactics.

    As the former governor of Arkansas, successor to the Little Rock Clinton administration, Mike Huckabee above all people should understand the importance of having a strong coalition to BEAT HER in the fall. Speaking like a man seeking to be president of evangelical America, not president of the United States, Huckabee told Meredith Vieira earlier this week: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’” (Of course, this is precisely how non – evangelical supporters have been acting towards his campaign. None of them have even so much as stated that they want to see an evangelical in this race or any other. Quite the contrary, they have made a point of making it clear that they prefer Mormons or even secular candidates to evangelicals at every turn.)

    Huckabee, meanwhile, is leaving some non-evangelical conservatives wondering, “Oh, my gosh. Maybe they never wanted to be allied with us.” (No mention that evangelicals are wondering the same.) Huckabee is working right now, intentionally or not, on breaking down a winning coalition of religious conservatives. (Right. The previous traditions of having religious conservatives voting for necromancers like Ronald Reagan and universalist occultists like George H. W. and George W. Bush was so much better, just like everything would be just fine were religious conservatives to vote for Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney now.)

    When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, some of the most moving statements coming out of congressional offices were from evangelical conservatives who viewed him as an important leader in defending the sanctity of human life. (Again, you would be fine with evangelicals supporting pro – death Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, don’t you? Of course you would.) Many of them had adopted his “culture of life” language and thinking. (Sure, as if evangelicals hadn’t been using that phraseology for decades.) They saw him as an ally and were inspired by his leadership. They joined him, despite theological differences, in important cultural and political fights. It was and is a natural pairing. (It was never a “pairing” but rather Rome using evangelicals to gain power for themselves, a situation that you wish to preserve.) Mike Huckabee, who is not a conservative on all things (Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative on anything but do you mention him? no because he is from New York and a Catholic), but is on social issues, should know that and treasure and protect and foster these alliances. He’s a riveting speaker who could rally social conservatives, at least to whip them up to fight another day. (There. You said it. That is what you want. You have no desire to see an evangelical ever become President or a legitimate leader in the conservative movement. Your only desire is to create another pawn to replace the compromised or fading Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, etc. to deliver votes to you people.) Instead, he’s executing a divide-and-conquer strategy. (Speaking of “divide and conquer”, what are the many Republican Jews that love John Hagee going to say about your demands that Mike Huckabee not speak at John Hagee’s church because a conservative Catholic insists on a revisionist form of the Holocaust favorable to the Catholic Church be adhered to?)

    When Mitt Romney was convinced he had to give a “Mormon speech,” he gave a speech about religious liberty and America. It wasn’t, in other words, about him. Of course, that was, in part, a political calculation — how much could be gained by talking about Mormon theology during a political campaign? But it was also just the right thing. (OK, so willfully deceiving people on matters of faith in order to get them to vote for you is the right thing to do. Gotcha. Thanks for admitting that this is precisely what the GOP has been doing to evangelicals for all these decades and you are angry at Huckabee for not willing to keep the scam going.) It’s a political campaign and people want to hear about his political thinking — what America means to him and how he fits into it all, what he can offer Americans in terms of leadership. (No, evangelicals want to hear him stop claiming that Mormonism is Christianity because unless he does he shows that he has no respect for the same Christians that he hypocritically demands respect from, and is fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted in office, as if his betraying the Massachusetts voters by flip – flopping on every single social issue did not demonstrate that already. Ironically, Roman Catholic religious right commentators like yourself and Bob Novak claim that Mitt Romney’s being able to lie and get away with it to the voters of Massachusetts is precisely why evangelicals should support him! In reality, Roman Catholics could care less about whether Romney is going to go back on his promise not to use the White House to promote Mormonism, because they know that relatively few Roman Catholics convert to Mormonism as opposed to huge numbers of evangelicals, and as a matter of fact I would bet they get some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing evangelicals become Mormons.) Since Mike Huckabee has found himself at the front of the Republican field, it’s been more The Mike Show than not. (And that is different from the other candidates in the race how? Oh, that is right. Only the other candidates are supposed to run races with an actual expectation of winning. Everything evangelicals are supposed to do is to promote the GOP while receiving absolutely nothing in return.) In a treadmill interview with the New York Times earlier this week, he claimed “I’m being questioned about the details of my faith like no one else.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama might legitimately argue that point, Gov. He’s cast aspersions on another candidate’s religion. (You mean like you are doing his right now?) He’s highlighted hostilities among evangelicals and others in the Republican party. (You mean like you have done with about four or five of your own columns including this one?) If he keeps this up, he’s going to do some unholy damage. (You mean force evangelicals to admit that the GOP is never going to push their agenda and that they have been taken for a ride all this time?)

    With all due respect to Hagee and his congregation (who are, of course, entitled to believe and say as they choose), Mike Huckabee should cancel his Sunday plans with Hagee. It can be his Christmas present to his party — to hold it together instead of continuing to tear it apart. (No, even if he does cancel this visit, you will still tear down Huckabee’s campaign by claiming that evangelicals are a bunch of ungrateful dumb bigots like you have been doing for the past month. What you are doing is demanding that evangelicals not fight back.)

    This is really what it is all about: Huckabee’s populist economic rhetoric. While Huckabee has not overtly come out against free trade and other forms of economic globalism (regrettably he has done the contrary) Huckabee has been more than willing to rally and exploit the feelings of those harmed and alienated by economic globalism. That was why hypocrite heretic Ron Paul went after Huckabee: he and the Huckster are going after some of the same people. But in doing this, Huckabee is treading on very dangerous ground for the GOP. The left has for years pointed out how the GOP has maintained the support of low – income whites despite their pro – rich and pro – corporate economic views by baiting Hollywood (and our universities) as bastions of anti – Christian elitism. And they are right. But this is the trick. The GOP bashes the liberal PROFESSORS at these universities, not the corporations that endow their chairs and give these universities tons of money. The GOP bashes the liberal Hollywood ACTORS, DIRECTORS, and SINGERS that create anti – Christian movies and songs, NOT Sony, Time Warner, Disney, etc. that have made the conscious decision to pervert the masses.

    By keeping the focus on Madonna, they draw the spotlight away from the fact that no one would have heard of this woman in the first place had corporate America not signed her to a record deals, constantly bombarded us with her music, videos, and movies, and continued to keep her in the public eye even after her many artistic and commercial failures (of which she has actually produced more of than her successes). You hate MTV? Good for you. But what about the corporation that owns MTV, and the other corporations that carry it as part of basic cable or satellite? You hate pornography? Good for you. But the Internet pornography industry would dry up overnight if the big banks stopped allowing their credit cards and similar to be used to support this stuff. And then there is the fact that many things vital to conservatism including Fox News are owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch!

    So when one looks at it, the anti – corporate message (and by that I mean amoral unaccountable global corporations that not only are only interested in money but seem to have figured out that the more they do to destabilize cultures in nation – states the more power they have to control the governments and markets in these nations … if you have a population that is strung out on porn, rock music, sports gambling, and unhealthy foods whether we are talking about the high fat high sugar junk foods or the even more harmful chemically engineered health foods for the body image worshiping diet and exercise fanatics a corporation can easily manipulate it to maximize its power and profits) is actually a pro – Christian, pro – family, and pro – freedom message. What the GOP and the religious right have done is successfully convince white evangelicals that big government is evil (which is true because the Bible says so) BUT THAT BIG BUSINESS IS GOOD (when the Bible says opposite).

    Now initially, Jerry Falwell and a lot of the others understandably signed onto the “business is good for Christianity” message to oppose communism, and that is understandable, as in addition to the external threat of the Soviet Union communism was a huge INTERNAL threat as well. But in the process, these folks forgot that the definition of fascism according to Benito Mussolini is “the corporatization of government power.” If you read Daniel and Revelation, the anti – Christ regime and the regime of the great harlot Babylon is not a communist one but a hypercapitalist fascist one where any filthy perversion that one wants can be had at the right price. Also, consider the figure of the false prophet … the anti – Christ’s rule will not be based on atheist Marxist ideology but will include a false religious ideology that will be very important to it. Religious right leaders at the time claimed that the atheist and Marxist doctrines of communism was a religion in its own right, and while I do not disagree, what the eschatological scriptures of the Bible seem to point to resembles much more closely the emperor/sun worship of the Roman Empire or the state religion of fascist Nazi Germany. So it appears that the Christian leaders that hopped onto the pro – business agenda of the Ronald Reagan (who was the first president to have official diplomatic relations with the Vatican) GOP in their zeal to oppose communism might have actually enabled a worse evil. And then you have the fellows that came up after Falwell: Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Pro – business religious right politics was very much in the interests of building their own financial empires … Robertson is reportedly a billionaire (and you know that with his many oil interests he is not the least bit concerned with how the tripling of the price of gas under the Bush administration has harmed the poor) and though Dobson’s finances are not as well known the fellow is obviously extremely wealthy.

    But at what cost? China has cast off Maoism because they have discovered that one can become a more powerful and effective aggressor and imperialist using economics than with a military, and is also experimenting with a version of state – sponsored false Christianity that they find is useful to their purposes, and Pat Robertson is helping them in that regards. In Russia meanwhile Vladimir Putin has for all intents and purposes made the Russian Orthodox Church a state church, and the Through The Bible ministry reports that both are working together to oppose evangelical outreach efforts in that nation, and we also know how aggressively Russia has used economics to pursue its own interests. And yes, some would add Israel to that mix. “Christian Zionists” like John Hagee and Pat Robertson do their best to prevent you from knowing this, but Zionism was originally a secular socialist movement, and as such Israel was originally a secular socialist state, but over the decades Israel has become increasingly theocratic and aggressively capitalist. It is interesting to note that their relations with the Vatican have greatly improved during that time. It is even more interesting to note that so has their relations with supposed anti – Catholic evangelicals such as John Hagee. Prior to this, Israel’s support came mostly from the Christian left and the secularists (who have now largely shifted sides to the Palestinians).

    So what does this have to do with Rome? Well, the Roman Catholic Church supports globalism. Always has. Now originally, even after Constantine made Christianity the church of the Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome did not have ultimate authority over the church and considerable influence over state matters. As a matter of fact, no one even claimed that the bishop of Rome should have this authority until Leo the Great in about 450 AD (Constantine’s Council of Nicea was 325 AD), and when he did there was considerable resistance from not only the state but the church also! It was not until 150 years later when Gregory I achieved virtually any of what Leo the Great first asserted for the bishop of Rome, and hundreds of years more until the bishop of Rome achieved primary (though not full) power over the church and enough over the state to crown Charlemagne emperor (by Leo III, the namesake of the first fellow to assert full power for the bishop of Rome).

    Leo III had reasons for doing so that fit the modern globalist agenda quite nicely. Not only was there substantial opposition inside the church to the growing power of the papacy, but there was state opposition too. The solution: reduce the number of states! That was the result of declaring Charlemagne the sole political ruler of all of the territories that the church saw fit to lay claim to in the west (the eastern church and its lands was a different, more complex story). All dissenters faced the full force of Charlemagne’s army. This was in the papacy’s interests because even having to deal with one secular ruler that proved to be hostile was preferable to dealing with many rulers with varying degrees of support for and opposition to the bishop of Rome. Propagating the power of the bishop of Rome was what was really important, not the attitudes of a particular leader who incidentally can always be replaced (isn’t that right Saddam Hussein?).

    So while the nations of this world still have their powerful armies, that is not where the real power in today’s world lies. No, that power rests with 1) financial markets and 2) technology. And just as it was in the 9th century, the more distinct economic and political entities there are, the harder it is for any one person or group that wishes to assert central authority. Despite what we still choose to call or regard ourselves, the net effects of things like global corporations, economic integration, participation in international governing bodies, treaties, and open immigration is the removal of these distinctions. The result is that when individual nations – and the people in them – have less power, stateless global rulers have more. The best part is that whether you sign your national sovereignty away by allowing EU style full economic integration, with a series of military and economic treaties to the United Nations NATO and similar, having an open immigration policy (or simply refusing to enforce your border and not punishing nations like MEXICO that commits economic and cultural acts of war by actively encouraging, aiding, and abetting their citizens – and anyone else – in crossing it) or by simply handing the keys over to AOL Time Warner and British Petroleum and allowing them to run the show, the end result is actually the same. Anyone who refuses to play ball, it seems, either winds up assassinated or seeing their nations turn into economic and political basket cases. If you have huge reserves of oil, uranium, or gold you can stave it off for a time, but only for a time. Never forget that Pat Robertson did urge George W. Bush to assassinate Hugo Chavez, for instance.

    Now the folks behind all this are rather crafty. They know that universal acceptance of this situation in this day and time will not come. So what do they do? They take half of their agenda (say corporate globalization by monopolies) and promote it to the right, and then take the other half (unrestricted immigration and global warming treaties) and promote it to the left. Then contrive (and contribute to) a bunch of hot – button issues (i.e. racism, which these folks contribute to by disseminating racist images of blacks to through the media that causes whites to fear the images and blacks to conform to them … by the way the founder of Black Entertainment Television Bob Johnson became a very rich man in a short time thanks to federal rules forcing cable companies to carry BET on basic cable, and please note that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have Bob Johnson on their speed dials) that keep the two opposing groups so distracted by emotionalism that its members cannot recognize that they were really advocating opposite ends of the same agenda, and causes them to completely ignore it when both groups push precisely the same thing.

    The Democrats that opposed NAFTA when George H. W. Bush first proposed it joined in the mocking of H. Ross Perot and later supported it when Bill Clinton enacted it. And the Republicans that called Bill Clinton a communist traitor for working so hard to get China into the WTO – including evangelicals that opposed China’s persecution of Christians not in their state church – either said nothing or supported George W. Bush’s finishing Bill Clinton’s job of getting China into the WTO. NRA – type conservatives that successfully defeated Bill Clinton’s version of the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City bombings but were either silent or generally supportive of George W. Bush’s Patriot Act after September 11th, which either the Clinton or Bush administration could have easily prevented. Now these same NRA – type conservatives are almost certainly going to back either anti – gun Mitt Romney or anti – gun Rudy Giuliani because one of them is “the most electable” against the even more anti – gun Hillary Clinton. And so on.

    Meanwhile, the various interests groups of these camps that think that they oppose each other are conditioned over time to accept just about anything. For instance, had Jimmy Carter signed welfare reform in the 1970s, there would have been a massive leftist uproar. But after the perceived horrors of the Reagan administration and the threat of Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton was able to invite an overweight black single mother to the welfare reform bill signing without a peep from a single black leader other than Juan Williams. In a similar fashion, had Reagan appointed an openly homosexual man to be his AIDS czar with his vice president refusing to support a political war against gay marriage (and his own homosexual daughter goes on to become “a parent” with her lesbian partner) with Nancy Reagan stating on the Today Show that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, it would have led to an evangelical walkout from the GOP. But Bush does these things and more and evangelicals remain his most loyal supporters, and now prominent evangelical leaders are lining up behind either $50 universal healthcare abortion Mitt Romney who tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights or late term abortion supporting cross – dresser for gay pride parades Rudy Giuliani. It is also interesting that the frontrunners in both races: Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, are considered “moderates” whose primary function is to get members of their own globalist coalition to accept as much of the agenda of the (alleged) opposing side as possible.

    And that goes back to why Huckabee is so hated. Right now, the dogma on the right is that it is completely unacceptable to oppose corporate America even if they replace as many American workers with foreign workers as they can, even if they adopt domestic partner benefits that the government then copies to write their civil union bills, even if they make tons of money by dealing with governments like Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, etc., and even if their CEOs are brazen criminals that loot their companies for billions without any accountability. All Huckabee is doing is stating that, you know, maybe it is kinda sorta OK to oppose how these corporations have betrayed not only your personal financial self – interest but are daily committing acts of high treason against your own nation.

    And that is making the GOP leadership apoplectic. MAYBE if evangelicals start resenting corporate America for outsourcing his job to India, relocating his son’s factory to China, and refusing to hire his other son for the construction job that would have paid his way through college or trade school because it can hire an undocumented Guatemalan for 1/3 the price, then they will start resenting corporate America for zealously doing business in these Marxist and Muslim nations that treat Christians so bad. And then MAYBE they will stop associating “Brokeback Mountain” and Madonna with the liberal Hollywood talent and media that produces and publicizes these abominations but the corporations that truthfully owns it all.

    If that ever happens, the religious right will start thinking “Why am I so dirty, bruised, smelly, and disease – ridden? Oh, that’s right. I got into bed with the Rockefeller Wall Street Republican Party and then allowed it to do with me whatever it pleased.” And then the whole deal falls apart. Since joining up with the Democrats is not an option, you would see evangelicals leading – or joining – an effort to oppose the very sources that are undermining this nation – and let us face it the evangelical movement with it – that they are currently unwittingly supporting. Do not get me wrong, these people don’t REALLY fear a third political party movement. The multiparty parliamentary systems that Europe, Israel, and pretty much every “democratic” nation on earth have has not inhibited the globalist agenda that I am speaking of; if anything it has made it easier for them. Rather, it appears that what they most fear is a large group of unaffiliated yet active, engaged, and involved people. As a matter of fact, Gary North, a person prominent in the founding of the religious right says in The Silence Of The Fundamentalist Lambs at lewrockwell.com/north/north575.html (please read it even if you disagree with his theological views) asserts that the religious right was founded in large part by the same people who founded the religious left (including the civil rights movement!) precisely to make sure that the then – unaffiliated white evangelical and fundamentalist Christians chose a side. Since these people were successfully manipulated into supporting first Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, it really did not matter which side they chose so long as they picked one.

    Now do not get me wrong. Huckabee, who is joined at the hip with the people who represent the worst of false evangelical Christianity (see Ties Between Mike Huckabee And John Hagee Discovered! He Also Has Ties To Kenneth Copeland, Tim LaHaye, And Rick Warren!) is not some contender for righteousness. Quite the contrary, Huckabee supported these people by going as far as to give scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants as a way of inducing their parents to move to Arkansas and work for Tyson Foods. Mike Huckabee also supported the Marxist National Education Association’s war against homeschoolers in Arkansas (see here and here). Now please note that Lew Rockwell is a pro – Ron Paul outfit and I regrettably have had to cease supporting him, so view it in that context, but everything that they say about Mike Huckabee is still nonetheless true. The national homeschool association endorsed Huckabee, but this was their reasoning: “When you understand he’s a Baptist minister, you don’t have to ask what he stands for.” With such logic the anti – Christ would be well – pleased! But it is very possible that the RHETORIC of Mike Huckabee might open some evangelical eyes that the GOP would rather remain wide shut.

    Then again, it could be part of the game. After all, illegal immigration fighter Tom Tancredo, after helping scuttle an immigration deal that would have shut down the border over the fantasy that we could actually identify and deport 15 million illegal immigrants or even get most of them to voluntarily repatriate to Mexico, did endorse Mitt Romney yesterday. Calling it amnesty is one thing, calling it logistical reality is another.

    Posted in Bible, big business, capitalism, catholic, Christian Zionism, Christians United For Israel, church state, civil rights, endtimes, eschatology, fascism, GOP, government, illegal immigration, immigration, James Dobson, John Hagee, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, Pat Robertson, politics, prophecy, religious right, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Zionism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

     
    %d bloggers like this: