Walker v. Sanders in 2016?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
(Source: Michael Vadon)

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will announce his candidacy for President of the United States in 2016. And run he should. With his impressive array of accomplishments as a conservative leader and brilliant campaigner, Walker can overwhelm primary opponents without even trying. While US Senators like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have some legislative accomplishments, they have no lasting executive achievements. Another US Senator, Marco Rubio, has waffled on more issues than a house of pancakes, supporting amnesty, then backing away, then embracing it once again. Refusing to take a firm stance on immigration or Common Core, Rubio is a Hispanic version of Jeb Bush, establishment values without the funding or media hype.

As for the other senators and governors with respectable and qualified credentials, their long-lasting impression in their states and on the country will not captivate conservative primary voters like Walker’s.

 

US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

 

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over the foreign policy free-fall of the Obama Administration. Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican, is a laughingstock. Martin O’Malley must explain to millions of Democratic primary voters why a Republican is cleaning up his mess in Maryland. Then there’s the male version of Elizabeth Warren, “Weekend at Bernie” Sanders, who shares the same pathological hatred for Walker as Wisconsin’s defeated public sector unions. “We need to strengthen trade unionism in this country”,  Sanders contended, even though Act 10 benefited working families, schools, and cities.

I look forward to Walker v. Sanders in 2016 (and Walker will win).

Governor Christie Announces for President: So What?

Governor Christie has announced his intentions to run for President in 2016.

Disaffected conservatives wanted him to reconsider his shy reserve on running for President in 2012 instead of Romney, the weakest front-runner in Modern Republican history.  Right then, the former US Attorney would have been an able and worthy contender, with enough self-awareness to recognize that he was not ready for the White House. George Washington, our first elected President, announced the same reserve at his first inaugural address before a captivated audience.

Christie in a 2015 Town Hall
(Source: Michael Vadon)

Then Christie fell captive to the media, more interested in buffing his profile than improving the prosperity and prestige of the Garden State. Today, Christie is now captured by the dull after-glow of a four-year media frenzy.  The non-scandal Bridge-gate controversy demonstrated not only Christie’s innocence, but the inconsequence of the marginalized media which had propped him up then dropped him without thinking twice about it.

Christie once declared “Wait till I’m really pissed”, pushed school choice, halted expensive projects and cuts taxes, then berated President Obama with  “What they hell are we paying you for?”. Today, Christie is a big compromiser, which rarely translates into a great leader. From missed opportunities for strong, conservative judicial appointments, to his battered pension meeting resistance from labor unions and state courts, to his failure to build his party or his national colleagues, Christie was all style, no substance. No longer leading, Christie follows polls, and they are not in his favor, nor ever will, and why should they?

Boston Doctor Fired For Telling Truth About Homosexuality

Boston, Massachusetts urologist Dr. Paul Church of Beth Israel Medical Center has been expelled from his medial position in the facility because of his refusal to comply with “Gay Pride” events sponsored at the hospital, along with his decision to decline support for “gay rights” causes on account of the health risks associated with homosexual conduct.

 

Mass Resistance, a pro-family advocacy group based in the Bay State, sent out the latest eblast:

 

On March 30, a major Harvard-affiliated hospital in Boston, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), expelled a well-respected urologist from its medical staff because he voiced concerns about the unhealthy nature of homosexual behavior and objected to the hospital’s aggressive promotion of “gay pride” activities.

 

The medical physician betrayed no sentiment of homophobia, bigotry, or prejudice, according to Mass Resistance leader Brian Camenker.

 

MassResistance  then offered the following extended commentary on Dr. Church’s activists and comments on the matter:
 

Over a decade ago, Dr. Church became concerned about the hospital’s aggressive promotion of and involvement in LGBT activities -- including Boston’s annual “Gay Pride Week” – and its emphatic push for staff participation in them. He felt compelled to speak out.

 

Through emails to hospital officials and later posting on the hospital’s Intranet system, Dr. Church cited irrefutable medical evidence that high-risk sexual practices common to the LGBT community lead to (among other things) a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, STD's, hepatitis, parasitic infections, anal cancers, and psychiatric disorders.

 

Churches, charities, and small businesses have submitted to heavy attacks from gay rights advocates. Entire states have even backed away from legislation which would protect the conscience and religious liberties of individuals and the above mentioned organizations.

 

Now, hospitals are engaging in homosexual advocacy, even if their promotion pushes against established science and research confirming the dangers of same-sex conduct.

 

Promoting such behavior, he said, is contrary to the higher mission of the healthcare facility to protect the public welfare and encourage healthy lifestyles.  Dr. Church also reminded the administration that its staff and employees represent a diversity of moral and religious views, and many believe that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral.

 

Dr. Paul Church

 

 

MassResistance provides an extended time-line of Dr. Church’s communications with staff and administrators on his concerns and refusal to participate in pro-homosexual activities at Beth Israel Hospital. The timeline includes his comments about the health risks associated with the conduct, and that the hospital should not promote behavior contrary to the better health and wellness of individual patients.

 

In one email, administrators forced the doctor to write an apology for his comments about the health risks associated with homosexual conduct:

 

In the spring of 2009, Dr. Church again responded to an email inviting him to participate in “Gay Pride” week. The email was sent from hospital president Paul Levy and two employee LGBT organizers. Dr. Church replied to all three in his response. He referenced the medical issues and the inappropriateness of the hospital being involved with this activity. 

 

Dr. Church was called before his department head and told that including the two activists in his reply constituted harassment, misconduct, and violations of hospital policies regarding the use of the “electronic information system.”  Threats of disciplinary action were leveled against him. He was ordered to write a letter of apology to the two LGBT organizers, which he did – though in the form of a clarification that his position was about policy and not personally against them.

 

What’s particularly unique about this exchange was that the doctor had to relent because two activists complained about his comments. Not two other physicians, or two other patients.

 

Dr. Church has been removed from the hospital, but has filed an appeal, citing unjust termination.

MassResistance ended the timeline with the following comment:

 

It may well come down to an outpouring of public opinion. This is outrageous. A respected physician – particularly one on the staff of Harvard Medical School and a major hospital – should not have his career essentially ended because he’s simply telling the truth.

 

For further information, please visit MassResistance or contact Brian Camenker at brian@massresistance.org

 

To voice your concerns or outrage, please contact Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC):

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
330 Brookline Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
Main Switchboard: 617-667-7000
Directions by Phone: 617-667-3000

Further Inquiries:

BIDMC Contact: Jerry Berger
Phone: 617-667-7308
Email: jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu

The Supreme Court is Not Supreme

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States declared:

“I now pronounce same-sex couples free to marry.”
 

In another tortured five-four ruling, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy (a wavering California Republican who has deliberately placed himself as a swing justice), the court invalidated same-sex marriage bans nationwide, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from discriminating against individuals who live out homosexual conduct, and want to culminate their behaviors with state-sponsored marriage.

Civil unions were not good enough, apparently. At least, that’s what Ellen DeGeneres told US Senator (then Presidential candidate) John McCain.

So, gay marriage has been thrust upon the United States. Or has it? Even though the Supreme Court relied on specious legal arguments to permit abortion through their ruling in Roe v. Wade, the fight to protect life has not ended. Pro-life defenders have pushed back, informing people about the precious gift of life which begins at conception: a biological fact, not a moral nicety or a religious sentiment.

So, before conservatives, freedom fighters, and advocates for religious liberty panic, a little perspective is needed.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not the supreme authority on anything. Never has been, never will be. The Supremes have made supreme errors before, have overturned themselves, and sometimes have endured the low-key shame of being ignored altogether.

Roger Taney: Judicial Tyranny
at its worst

The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong before. In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney, himself a slave owner and hardly a disinterested party in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, ruled that “negroes are a subordinate class of human beings with no rights that a white man is bound to respect.” Today, we have a black President, and African-Americans in all levels of public office and private commerce.

The SCOTUS once deemed that separate but equal facilities were acceptable, thus justifying segregation. They overturned themselves fifty years later.

During World War II, following Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, Japanese-Americans were subject to discriminatory curfews, and 112,000 were placed into internment camps for fear that they posed an internal threat to the country. In 1942, the Supreme Court affirmed Roosevelt’s discriminatory order in Korematsu v. United States. Forty years later, Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush I issued an apology and reparations to those Americans.

Not just based on its legacy, but by design the judiciary was never intended to rival let alone overturn the other federal branches.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton deemed the judicial branch to be the weakest of the “co-equal” branches. The Framers had never intended the court system to wield the wild authority to determine which laws are and are not constitutional, or to redefine culture or natural law.

Ironically, the first significant Chief Justice of SCOTUS, John Marshall, expanded the power of the Court by denying itself a power, in granting a writ of mandamus to a frustrated judicial appointee named William Marbury.

Supreme Court of the United States

 

Even though Marshall had established the precedent of judicial review, never did he expect the Court to redefine institutions as basic, as fundamental as marriage. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation, that they did not have to leave their homes. President Andrew Jackson snidely retorted: “Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Let him enforce it!” Granted, not the best example, but the principle remains the same: The Court is not the final authority nor enforcer of any doctrine.

Returning to the Dred Scott decision, what occurred and what followed can offer conservatives hope. Obviously, the Court ignored the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endorsed by their Creator certain unalienable rights.”

The chief author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave-owner, yet his status does not undermine the eternal condition that all men are created equal, regardless of their race or sex. The roots of our country supersede anything issued by a court.

In connection to this deeper legacy, the Republican Party formed to combat this judicial tyranny, which some of the Justices had resisted in dissenting opinions. Republicans also unitedto combat polygamy, to ensure the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Yes, indeed.

With Dred Scott, Taney upended decades of compromise. Civil War ensued over the slavery issue, among other cultural and political concerns, followed by three Constitutional Amendments, which granted former slaves freedom, citizenship, then the vote.

Besides natural law, and the founding principles of this country, there is the Constitution, and the Amendment process.

Scott Walker: "Time for a Constitutional Amendment"

 

Fast forward to Election 2016,  and already one potential GOP Presidential contender, Scott Walker, has announced the need for a Constitutional Amendment to protect state sovereignty to define marriage. Declared candidate Bobby Jindal went further: “Let’s just get rid of the Supreme Court!” Perhaps an extreme view from the Louisiana governor, but the recognized principle remains: the Court is not the final authority.

Conservatives have embraced wins from SCOTUS, and shouldered losses. They have also won on other fronts. The SCOTUS setback over marriage does not mean the fight is over.

The Supreme Court is not the final authority. We the People are.

God is Not Going to Judge America. God has Already Condemned Sin. Those Who Don't Believe Will Die Forever

I want to bring this point out as best as I can.

First, I want to make it crystal clear: sin is evil and its wages is death.

No question about it.

Now, let us also bear in mind that God hates sin, so much so that He sent His Son Jesus to die for the sin and sins of man.

Yes, there needs to be a clear distinction about this.

Sin is a noun, a status forced upon all mankind because of the First Adam.

Yet the Second Adam died for us and died as us!

All our sins are paid for, and sin in the flesh is fully and forever condemned.

In fact, to this day, Jesus serves as the High Priest Forever, the propitiation/mercy seat for all the sins of the all the world.

The fact is, that all the sins of the world have been fully and forever paid for.

Yet for man to be saved, he needs to recognize that all his sins are paid for, a recognition of the eternal grace of God manifested in Christ.

Man needs life, and the life of Christ cannot live in us if we do not believe that all our sins are forgiven.

Consider what Jesus told Nicodemus:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)

Man is dead in his trespasses, and needs life! Jesus came to deal with sin (which causes death) and grant us His life!

So, the world is full of people who are dead in sin. Jesus has taken care of the sin, and every man who believes on Jesus receives His life!

Now, consider also what Jesus said afterwards:

"17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " (John 3: 17-18)

Jesus came to save the whole world. Notice however that those who do not believe on Jesus are already condemned.

Let's state the facts: the whole world is under condemnation because of sin. The way out? Jesus!

Now, because Jesus has died, has risen again, and sits in glory at the right hand of God the Father, He is the mercy seat, the propitiation for all the sins of the world:

"1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2: 1-2)

Jesus has already paid for all the sins of the world.

So, the argument from many preachers today, that God will judge America, or is judging Asia for its sins -- all of that is wrong. That kind of talk makes light of what the blood of Jesus has accomplished - and is accomplishing still.

Consider Abraham, when he prayed for Sodom and Gomorrah:

"22And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18: 22-23)

There was one righteous person in Sodom: Lot. If Abraham had plead for "one righteous", then the city would have been spared.

Today, let us recognize that there are still in every country men and women made righteous by the blood of Jesus. Notice also that John writes about "Jesus Christ the righteous" who is our propitiation.

How about that?

Let us also consider what the New Covenant would bring to those who believe on Jesus:

"8In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

 

9For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

 

10For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee." (Isaiah 54: 8-10)

 

God has already condemned sin. He is not judging America, even if American Courts are sanctioning the perversion of marriage, or other policies outside of the truth of God's Word.

 

Now, that does not mean that men and women who reject the grace of God are going to get away with.

 

As Jesus said, those who do not believe are condemned already. Those who do not believe on Jesus as their Savior, and accept His full, final, and forever payment for all their sins - will die forever.

 

But let me state this clearly - God is not going to judge America. Americans and all other human beings who do not believe in Jesus, will absorb the terrible consequences of sin because the wages of sin is death.

The SCOTUS Origins of Cultural Breakdown

A good friend of mine listed the following reasons why the cultural decay is eating up the fabric of American public life at this time.

I will offer some points to affirm, counter, or add any other concerns I may have about his comments, but I do submit readily that the speedy abandonment of this country's Judeo-Christian heritage is hastening the academic, economic, and moral/cultural decline in our country, now made worse because of homosexual marriage, and the attending charge that any state refusing to grant same-sex marriage licenses are thus violating the Constitution.

The recent shameful history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and how the U.S. Supreme Court has FAILED the American people and led this country into a steep downward moral spiral over the past 50 years:

(1. (1962) The teaching of God or the mention of God's Name or prayer to the God of the Bible was removed from the U.S. public school classrooms and made illegal (Engel vs, Vitale, 1962). The result? Public education classrooms degenerating into godless hellholes of violence, disrespect, unruliness, and lack of education. Millions of children stripped of the knowledge of God from an early age. God was removed from the public classroom, and Harry Potter, witchcraft and the New Age was invited in His place.

The good new is that indeed young men and women can read the Bible in their classrooms. Students can have Christian clubs and meetings, but the school cannot officially recognize or endorse the meeting.

(2. (1964) the removal of virtually all legal or community bans in the United States against the public display of pornography. Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis vs. Ohio, could provide, as his 'litmus test' as to what constituted "pornography" only the vague phrase, ":I know it when I see it". Based upon this ridiculous and totally subjective (and un-enforceable) remark by a Supreme Court Justice, the floodgates were opened for the public display of nudity and sex in this country, de-sensitizing the minds and hearts of the young over the past 50 years.

(3. (1973) The nationwide legalization of abortion in the Roe vs. Wade decision, As a result of one Supreme Court decision (based upon faulty legal logic) 55 MILLION BABIES have been aborted in this country, cheapening the value of life and deadening the consciences of millions.

Abortion is indeed a tragic thing, and should only have been allowed in the most extreme and thus limited of circumstances. The good news is that more people are realizing that life does begin at conception. Even atheists are now pro-life because science and technology have affirmed the complex wonders of a living person within his or her mother's womb.

(4. (2015) On June 26, the Supreme Court issues a 5-4 decision legalizing "marriage" between same sex couples, thus attempting to re-define the meaning of a relationship that God Himself established. The Supreme Court of the United States was given the God-given mandate to be the 'gate keepers' of this society to protect the innocent and the young from the wolves and predators of sin within the society. Instead, the Supreme Court has flung the gates WIDE OPEN and now the wolves are feasting freely upon the sheep. Shame on them.

I concur with putting "marriage" in quotation marks. Marriage cannot be define but as "one man and one woman". Any other construct makes a mockery of the institution.

If anyone differs or refuses to recognize the role of a Creator in the grand designs of our Constitution and by extension political culture, then look no further than the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^{[note 1]} promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

One key word stands out: "Blessings".

Liberty is a blessing, and thus comes from a Blesser. There can be no liberty apart from Someone who grants this liberty. Without a Godly culture, there is fear, conformity, and tyranny.

Torrance: Another Welfare City?

I live in Torrance, CA, and I work at a grocery store.

I love my job. I get to meet all kinds of people, and I get to interact and hear interesting stories about their lives.

I also love living in Torrance, CA, and I hope that I can live here for the rest of my life.

Torrance, CA is a relatively conservative and well-off city. Most people own their homes, and working toward that goal. The aerospace industry still hires a large and influential number of engineers in the region, along with a legal and political class.

A large cohort of public sector employees and professionals live in Torrance, too.

Safe and prosperous, Torrance has a lot going for it, including the distinction of leading on water reduction during this year's unprecedented drought.



I see so many people on food stamps, who are dressed better than I am, who fetch out money to pay for hot, non-food items. There is a callousness about food stamp use in our times. One lady had traveled to Florida, and yet she was paying for groceries with government  money. What is this madness?

I have spoken with my co-workers, who have told me horrendous stories, people dressed in glitzy jewelry, designer clothes -- and buying groceries with EBT.

I get angry seeing people living off of other people's money, in such a brazen fashion. Even the United Food and Commercial Workers has called for legislation which would require businesses, corporations, and other for-profit firms to reveal how many of their employees are getting by on food stamps.

One lady complained that she could not purchase cooked food with her EBT card. She complained about it.

Excuse me? How about getting a job, or cutting expenses so that you can live within your means in stead of on someone else's?

Another gentleman had just gotten hired back at the firm where he had been laid off. He had forgotten what it was like to spend his own money, and candidly admitted it. There is nothing wrong a little assistance. People do find themselves in hard times. The state needs to implement a time limit, however. People should not live on the dole. Assistance should be just that -- assistance, so that the individual in need can start meeting their own needs.

Yet food stamps have become pervasive, even acceptable. People are working, and they still rely on food stamps. Are they not paid enough, or are they failing to spend their money properly? One lady I spoke with never sought a hand out. At one point, she was working two jobs, sixteen hours a day! Now that's a work ethic. Speaking of which -- what has happened to the glory and necessity of getting out and getting things done for yourself?

I know fast food workers in Torrance, and some of them buy their groceries with food stamps, too. Most people look at this trend and demand higher minimum wages. Granted, their frustration is understandable. The answer to the poverty issue is not more regulations and exacting higher minimum wages.

The solution is more opportunity, easier pathways for individuals to seek employment, gain training, invest their resources.

Of course, the politics of envy is more effective than the politics of responsibility, since running on a platform of "blame someone else" and advertising yourself as the solution ensures a long-term bench of support and power.

In the Woonsocket, RI post, I mentioned that the Torrance Farmer's Market was incorporating EBT payments. If people do not have enough of their own money to pay for products at boutique firms like those in farmer's markets, then they should not be shopping there at all.

Subsidized housing has taken up prime real estate in Torrance, as well. Senior citizens pay lower rent to live in Torrance for apartments set aside for older residents. One can adequately submit that these lowered rent prices are also a form of welfare. The Daily Breeze advertised the availability of "affordable" housing, too.

The city provides a number of free services for elderly residents, too. How do taxpaying members of "The Balanced City" feel about this arrangement?

Indeed, has Torrance become another welfare city?

Prager Does Not Understand Christ's Forgiveness

Dennis Prager is one of the foremost religious conservative minds of our time.

I have found a strong affiliation with many of his writings.

On the subject of forgiveness, however, he exposes his misunderstanding of the Old and the New Covenants (already prophesied in the Hebrew Bible).

He also misunderstands too much about New Testament doctrine, including his present rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah long-awaited by the Jewish people, yet rejected by many of them when He appeared, prophesied, died on the Cross, then rose again.

His latest remarks about the Charleston, South Carolina shooting again show the disjunction regarding the true meaning of forgiveness, as separated from civil penalties, and the basis by which Christians forgive evil doers and their deeds.

Although moved by the forgiveness of the victims' family members, he disagreed with it.

Really.

First, consistent with my religion, Judaism, I do not believe that anyone but the actual victim has the right to forgive someone for the evil they have inflicted. If I steal from you, you have the right to forgive me, but your best friend doesn't. If Jones rapes my daughter, my daughter can forgive Jones, but I cannot. Among other reasons, I don't own my daughter, and, as pained as I would be, I wasn't the person raped.

First, I would counter that Judaism is not Prager's religion, nor is he the final authority on its dictates or traditions.

Second, if Prager expects Jewish people to live by the tenets of the Hebrew Bible and the Midrashim, how does he explain what sets aside their sins? Throughout the first Five Books, the persons recorded in the several accounts rely on the blood of animals to atone for their sins.

What forgives the sins of Jewish people today?

If he read over the Navim (the prophets), they all speak of the Messiah:

"1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Dennis Prager

 

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:1-5)

 

Then there's the New Covenant. Not the Ten Commandments (a pristine and righteous set of demands who no one can keep):

 

"8In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

 

9For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

 

10For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee." (Isaiah 54: 8-10)

 

and then

 

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31: 34)

 

We have this forgiveness of sins -- all our sins -- because of Jesus' Work at the Cross.

 

The writer of the Book of Hebrews explains:

 

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Hebrews 1: 3)

 

and

 

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:12)

 

Today, men and women who believe in Jesus do not forgive out of a sense of obligation.

 

We forgive graciously, because Jesus has so freely forgiven us!

 

"31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (Ephesians 4: 31-32)

 

In fact, the blood of Jesus is so powerful, that His blood, far better than of bulls and goats, cleanses (present tense!) forever!

 

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1: 7)

 

and

 

"1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2: 1-2)

 

Prager does not understand this forgiveness because Judaism is in fact a backtrack to Moses, when God had intended for every person, the Jew first and then the Gentile, to believe on His Son Jesus!

 

Many Christians believe that their faith demands forgiveness of everyone for everything. I don't know why they believe this. Certainly that is not standard Catholic or Protestant doctrine. Nor is Christ the model for this idea. He forgave those who crucified him, not all those who crucified others.

 

There may be Christians who believe that they "have to forgive", but that does not diminish the blessed goodness of God our Father, and the blessed sonship which we receive from Him through Jesus.

 

In fact, there is nothing but goodness and glory for Christians, many of whom have yet to learn of the incredible inheritance offered to us:

 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1: 3)

 

and

 

" God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 2:4-6)

 

and

 

"31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8: 31-34)

 

There is so much about the blood of Jesus, about the grace of God, which Prager simply does not understand. Forget the doctrines of men, but look at the Word of God.

 

Another thing that puzzles Prager:

 

Second, I am not aware of Roof having repented. And even God Himself doesn't forgive those who never repent.

 

The Bible answers this question:

 

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5:6-9)

 

The grace of God does not depend on us. He has provided a payment for our sins. We can extend this grace to others, but whether they accept it is up to them.

 

His third point is actually well worth considering:

 

Third, regarding whites, blacks and crimes, we seem to inhabit a strange moral universe. Great numbers of black Americans seem to be unable or unwilling to forgive America -- specifically white Americans -- for sins committed by whites who are long dead. But many seem to support the forgiveness of a white man who murdered nine blacks last week.

Indeed, there are elements in "black America" who insist on castigating this country over its past sins and failures. Sociologists still point to slavery as the cause for much of the pathology in black families (in reality, it's government subsidy and regulatory burdens which stifle freedom and responsibility).

 

Other than his third point, Prager's misunderstanding about the grace of God, and the Gospel of grace, underscores the truth about Christ Jesus and Christianity.

 

 

Black Youth Blasts Obama over Charleston Shootings

In a YouTube Vlog posted earlier this week, Georgia Republican CJ Pearson excoriated President Barack Obama for politicizing the Charleston, South Carolina  massacre.
What stands out about this Vlog blast?

Pearson is a young, African-American conservative.

In what represents the Democratic Party's weakening grip on the young and black vote, Pearson lays out in succinct detail his disgust with Obama's lack of knowledge or principle on individual rights and the proper role of the state to protect citizens from deranged marauders.

Pearson has turned heads before, when he released a video questioning whether President Obama actually loves America. This time, before criticizing the President, Pearson offered his condolences and invited his audience to pray for the victims' families and the city of Charleston.

This was a deep and senseless tragedy, and something that could have been prevented.

Indeed, let's start talking about solutions to mass murder.

What I want to talk about is how our President politicizes the entire thing.

He took the podium and he talked about how this couldn't have happened, wouldn't have happened if we had gun control. That this kind of thing happens only because people carry guns.

Finally, someone had the time and wit to reduce President Obama's senseless argument to its childish simplicity.

This man took the lives of these nine people, and said: "I simply just don't care if I have to use you, you, and you to further my agenda. Then it's A-OK.

President Obama, following his former chief of staff's lurid advice, never lets a crisis go to waste, even if it means taking advantage of people in a delicate, difficult position. How can anyone talk about advancing a barren political agenda when nine people were savagely murdered? How can anyone bring up a failed policy in the face of the victims' family members declaring to the assailant Dylann Storm: "I forgive you"?

Pearson has one word to describe this brazen manipulation:

That is pathetic.

Well put. Succinct and on point. A charge of malevolence would be too dignified for the pettiness of President Obama. Progressives in Washington are also growing tired of the current chief executive, who is interested in playing golf or furbishing up a small legacy in a corrupt city.

These people died in a place of worship. They were praising their God. And they died doing it. These people lost their mother. Some people lost their Dad. They lost someone whom they really cared about.

People got hurt. People died. People matter. Not politics. Not agendas. But President Obama cannot interact with others except along these narrow lines. Every situation has to be divided into winners and losers, or attack any sense of displacement and "unjust authority." Every moment has to be transformed into somehow furthering "The Cause", for he came to the White House to help "Be the change that we have been waiting for."

For six years, this country has been waiting for leadership, for an example to follow, a profile in courage worth respecting, worth emulating.

Pearson calls out the weakness, the poverty of our President, who does not live up to any presidential aspirations.

And you're going to sit there, and you're going to walk up to the podium and talk about how the Second Amendment doesn't matter?

Pearson's voice rises. He is angry at a President who talks a unique tragedy and turns it into a baseless attack on one of our country's basic freedoms. More Americans need to get angry like this young man. Are there enough freedom fighters left to do something about the arrogant chief executive still waging war on every enemy which isn't?

And how you have a solution to this, by taking their guns away?

There is no more glaring example of "blaming the victim" than the gun control argument. Innocent people get killed by a deranged gun man. The answer? Take away their sure-fire means of protecting themselves. Unbelievable, or as Pearson would say, "pathetic".

Well, here's a news flash for you. Number One, besides the pathetic nature of that comment and you're willing to slam the entire mean of their lives and their deaths into the ground.

Aside from that, you're blatantly wrong.

After Sandy Hook, as a student I was scared out of my mind.

In fact, President Obama tried to take advantage of this country's anxiety and pushed gun control. The measures attempted in Congress would not have protected those children and teachers massacred in Connecticut. Permitting an expansion of concealed-carry would have.

What allayed this young man's fears?

That there was an armed guard ready to do whatever it took to save my life, who was willing to die trying. Because unlike you, President Obama, I realize that criminals don't abide by the law. It's one of the reasons they're criminals.

Bingo. Not only does Pearson lay out basic realities about this fallen world, but he accurately depicts how foolish the President and his progressive agenda really are.

And they don't care, President Obama, because. . .they just don't.

The discussion about safety in the face of gun violence must focus on more than what causes assailants to commit these terrible crimes. For those law-abidinf citizens, they need an immediate and reliable recourse to protect themselves in the event of such atrocities.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Stupid people kill people.

How many times has this refrain abounded in gun control debates? What makes this statement particularly refreshing, however, is that a young, black male from the South is declaring this self-evident fact.


CJ Pearson

Whatever hopes that the Democratic Party had of holding onto the black, youth, or the black youth vote seem to be vanishing faster every day.

And that is how you be objective, President Obama.

We don't go out and take away everyone's cars when a stupid person gets a DUI, because it's that stupid person's actions aren't representative of everyone who drives a car. So, why is some lunatic, who clearly lacks a stable mental state, representative of every gun-owning American here in this country?

Pearson possesses a firm grasp of history, logic, and evidence while making the concrete argument against gun control. More conservatives need to adopt his courage as well as force of mind to combat the ongoing gun control agenda.

Your presidency has been pathetic, and this is one testimony to it. When you take someone's lives, and you completely discount the tragedy of their  lives taken away from them, and you use it to further your own agenda.

That's something that I won't tolerate. That's something I won't stand for. And that's something I expect more from the leader of the free world.

It's time for Americans across this country, including this articulate young man, to accept: President Obama is not a leader, or rather he has no intention of leading a free world. His agenda has been a big government legacy which limited the cause and character of the individual at the expense of the state, and using every crisis to justify the seizure of power and authority from the states and the people.

And it's sad that we have a President who is so egotistical and so self-righteous.

Absolutely, on both points.

That he is willing to do whatever it takes to make that he gets what he wants done, but not give closure to the famiies of so many who have lost a loved one. These families will never be the same ever again. And I can't even think of enough words to give them enough closure, to give them enough hope.

Hope, and change. Weren't those the two things that President Obama was determined to provide to this country? Instead there is despair, disappoint, and stagnation. Pathetic, indeed.

But what I can tell them today, is courage, perseverance, and bravery is something that embodied this entire congregation, and that these people were with their God when this happened. And this man, who committed this heinous act, shall be brought to justice.

Pearson returns to the plight of the families who have lost loved ones. They need to be comforted, they need to be reminded that there will be justice for them, that the President and staff respect their pain.

It's sad that we have situations like these, but I guess it's one of those bad things about life, isn't it?

My thoughts are with all the people who have been affected by this tragedy God bless America, and God bless the people of Charleston, South Carolina.

Today, our thoughts need to be focused first on the people and the city of Charleston. Our thoughts should also turn to young Americans like CJ Pearson, individuals who are proud of their country, who are not afraid to fault President Obama, the hope and change we have been waiting for.

Breitbart Flail: Rove Stood His Ground

In a brazen attempt to shoulder their distorted reporting on former Bush advisor Karl Rove's, now Breitbart is claiming that "Karl Rove Walks Back 'Repeal the Second Amendment' Comments after uproar."

Awr Hawkins reports:

During a Monday interview with Fox News’ David Webb, Fox News’ contributor Karl Rove walked back his Fathers’ Day comments in which he said “violence involving guns” is not going away “until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the Second Amendment.”

Oh brother. The full context of the transcript could not have made it clearer. Rove never believed nor advocated for the removal of the Second Amendment.

His exact words, from Sunday:

So, we have come a long way. Now, maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean, basically, the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen. 

I don’t think it’s an answer.

Exactly, in that Rove's exact words never suggested "get rid of the right to bear arms." Another issue: even if some of the comments are "His exact words", they are not all of his words. The context has been removed and the points which he had made before and would make afterward have been taken away too.

These quotations are turning into journalistic malpractice.

Hawkins continues:

Karl Rove affirmed, not walked back, his comments

Although Rove made these comments during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, a video of the comments was never posted by Fox News. Other videos from that show were posted, but not Rove’s comments on the Second Amendment.

So? Fox News does not broadcast every individual segment of every statement or conversation from the news panel. Can we move on, please?

With the backlash against the comments growing, Rove appeared with Webb the next day to address the situation.

Oh yes, the "backlash". Now media operations are patting themselves on the back every time they force someone, anyone to "explain" or retract their statements. Don't get me wrong. Holding news anchors and reporters accountable for false, misleading, or inaccurate information is essential. Media need a watchdog as much as any other public institution.

Yet media include the more conservative blogs and newspapers, too.

Now, Hawkins claims that Rove "walked back" his comments.

What did he say in response to challenges and concerns about his stance on the second Amendment?


Rove responded:

People always in moments like this, some politicians look for magic answers. And I don’t think this is an answer, as I said. I went on to describe what I think we ought to be focused on now, which is, we had warning signs from this young man. He talked to friends about it, he talked to other individuals about it. He went on the internet and openly explained what he was going to do and somehow or another we missed those signs.

"I don't think this is an answers. . .as I said."

Rove had already said, and affirmed what he has said. Nothing to walk back or retract.

We need more personal responsibility in our society, in my opinion, in which friends and family and community care about each other to take these things seriously. The idea that somehow or another this could have been prevented by some gun control act just simply is not accurate. Take Chicago, it has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books and it’s a murder capital. It’s because when you take away the right to keep and bear arms bad people keep and bear arms and use them.

As I said… On Fox News Sunday, this is not an answer.

"As I said. . .as I said". This is not walking back, but rather standing your ground (no pun intended).

Honestly, I have more respect for "Establishment" Rove for not caving to media pressure on their misunderstanding

If New Media is going to descend into the same old "Old Media" smears and distortions, I am this close to "Going Establishment". I do not believe that Andrew Breitbart intended for his media efforts to turn into right-wing propaganda or water-carrying for outlier conservatives who have no other interest but to rail against power and authority. These attacks against Rove are becoming unbearable. If the democratization of the media is all about bringing down people in power in an unscrupulous fashion, then what is the point of news reporting? We might as well go back to relying on the neighborhood gossips and their petty, personal spin on issues.

Better yet, why not crack open the ancient fables and legends of Greek Mythology? At least there was no attempt from the poets of antiquity to give a minute-by-minute truthful account of events, as much as to justify communal and cultural ideals.

Right-wing, pro-liberty, anti-liberal bias reporting is a boon, blessing, and yes God-send. Now it's time for reporters to look at reporting the truth, not just trumpeting a right-wing narrative which also flies in the face of the truth.

The New Media should be the True Media, exposing government corruption and collusion, and also exposing media connections with promoting both, as has occurred numerous times. I think that's what Breitbart wanted, and his legacy should reflect that.

Chaffetz Out-Maneuvered: Meadows Reinstated

Congressman Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina) was poised for retribution following his vote against GOP leadership against Fast-Track Authority, i.e. Obamatrade.

Meadows shared with reporters from The Daily Signal:

A conservative House lawmaker angry at “a culture of punishment and fear” created by Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team has had enough.

“For the last six months they have doled out small punishments in a variety of forms,” said Rep. Mark Meadows of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

He then reported what House Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was planning to do:

"The leadership team wants to create a culture of punishment and fear without a culture of debate and dialogue. But there is no honor in bowing to a bully. There is only honor in fighting a good fight—win or lose. This is not a fight I will back down from.”

Meadows, R-N.C., was greeted in his Capitol Hill office last Thursday by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the House Oversight and Government Reform chairman, and given a lose-lose choice.

He could resign as chair of the Government Operations subcommittee or be removed from the role.

Chaffetz, whom I have styled as “Henry Waxman Jr.” admitted that Meadow’s vote against leadership did factor in the up-coming ouster.

Yet that ouster has not come up, and Meadows will stay on as chairman of the Government Operations committee.

 

Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC)
(From Carolina Public Press)

 

Today, the Committee and Sub-committee Chairman issued the following dual press release:

“Last week I announced a change in the Government Operations sub-committee chairmanship.  A number of people have asked me to reconsider that decision.  Having spoken with Mark Meadows several times during the past week, I think we both better understand each other.  I respect Mark and his approach.  The discussions and candor have been healthy and productive. Ultimately, I believe we both want to do what is best for the country.  Obviously I believe in Mark Meadows or I would not have appointed him to this position in the first place.  It is in the best interest of the Committee to move forward together.  Therefore, I have asked Mark to continue in his role as sub-committee Chairman,” said Chairman Chaffetz.

It is quite interesting that Chairman Chaffetz refuses to identify who asked him to “reconsider that decision”. The backlash against the GOP Leadership purge not only erupted within the House, but in social media, too, with Mark Levin calling Chaffetz “a shrimp” and “a fraud”.

Chaffetz had to admit that his sudden decision to remove Meadows does not make much sense, since he appointed him to the sub-committee chairmanship in the first place.

Meadows’ portion of the press release was gracious:

“I greatly appreciate Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ willingness to reconsider his decision, as well as my Oversight and Government Reform Committee colleagues’ support. I will continue to vote and conduct myself in accordance with my conscience, what my constituents want me to do, and what is best for the country. I look forward to continuing my work as Subcommittee Chairman of Government Operations under the leadership of the Oversight Committee Chairman. I know we are both dedicated to conducting real and meaningful oversight for the American people,” said Congressman Meadows.

The key standout in this release “conduct myself in accordance with my conscience” is the crucial element, and one major source of Meadows’s rising frustration with House leadership. House Reps are supposed to vote for what they believe is right, not just what their leaders want, and yet conservatives like Meadows along with other House conservatives were targeted for not getting along to go along.

So, what happened? How did Meadows weather the storm of leadership disdain bent on removing him from his subcommittee chairmanship?

Politico (yes, the left-leaning Politico) recounts how fellow House Oversight conservatives counted votes in their colleague’s favor:

House Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan just showed he can outfox top Republicans.

[O]ver the course of a week, Jordan canvassed Republicans on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, shoring up support for Meadows (R-N.C.).

Jordan’s guerrilla campaign seemed to work — the majority of the overwhelmingly conservative committee said they wanted Meadows back.

Wow. Conservatives in Washington are pushing back against Establishment leadership and winning. While the Left and liberal interests have had a stellar record organizing their elements and intimidating their opponents into silent defeat, freedom advocates and federal conservatives had often found themselves disconnected or thwarted in their efforts to work together and advance their agenda.

That trend is changing, not just in the media, but within the Beltway.

Politico then remarked:

This could be a major setback in Boehner’s leadership’s drive against lawmakers who defy him. GOP leadership have said for several weeks they were finally ready to crack down on dissenters.

This Congressional session, dissent is the conservative position, as limited government has faced limitless opposition from Democrats as well as Republicans. Until now.

Meadow’s reinstatement (or rather, maintenance, since he was never removed from his sub-com chairmanship) indicate that conservative pressure from the grassroots, the media, and within the federal legislature can be effective.