New Englanders in California

When not writing, or calling my elected representatives or radio stations, I work as a checker-cashier at the local grocery store.  As one of the job’s perks, I meet people from all over the world (France, Germany, Spain, Brazil), but also visitors and residents from New England. Sometimes I can tell by the accent (no Rs!).

 

 

As part of the job, I check ID for alcohol, cigarettes, or cough syrup. Yes, overregulation is alive and straining in California. At least extortionary vice taxes haven’t birthed black markets in the area. Everyone breathes freely in California, so to speak (unlike NYC’s Eric Garner). I have seen a wide array of drivers’ licenses from all over the country, too. Arizona and Nevada top the list. Interestingly enough, I have seen a fair share from the East Coast: New Jersey and Massachusetts, and one from Rhode Island. They get my attention most of all.

 

Even though California is just as liberal (or worse) than the East Coast,  the migration of mid-Atlantic residents and New Englanders continues to the West Coast. Garden State residents fled New Jersey’s cold weather, dirty atmosphere, and high crime rate. One resident told me that Camden, NJ is worse than Compton! They also don’t like Governor Chris Christie, and they resent how expensive everything is along the New York-New Jersey turnpike.

 

New Jersey State Flag

 

I have found that a surprising number of New England transplants have move to the South Bay, by the warm ocean of the Golden State, particularly from Ocean State Rhode Island and Bay State Massachusetts. For New Englanders, California is still a land of golden opportunity (however blunted or tarnished), with (slightly) lower taxes and a (much, much) better climate. Who can blame them for wanting to move here to sunny CA, particularly Torrance, California (birthplace of Clay Pell’s wife Michelle Quan, where no one’s Prius gets stolen). My city boasts the best weather. Never humid, the temperate hovers in the low 70s temperature, and rarely fluctuates. Despite a cold snap a week ago (night-time temps plummeted into the high 30s), the warmth wafted back in, and summer has returned.

 

Earlier this week, I met three Boston residents in one day alone.

 

Why else do New England residents move to the South Bay? Some transplants complained about the roads. Others left years ago looking for more opportunity. They talk about James “Whitey” Bulger, the Irish mafia thug who was hiding in Santa Monica, CA for nearly two decades before getting caught and dragged back to federal court.

 

The first word from Massachusetts’s residents? “Boston”, since very few people know anything about the state besides its biggest city. I know better, but I understand: Californians like me will say “I live in LA” even though my city is an incorporate suburb, long separated from the Empire of Los Angeles.

 

A lot of them sound pretty conservative, too, not too happy with big government, bad schools, and the Democracy running things on Beacon Hill. Sometimes, we talk politics. One of them really surprised me, saying that she had voted Democrat all her life, but cast her latest ballot for Republican Charlie Baker: “He’s a numbers guy.” Of course, two-time losing Democrat Martha Coakley was a terrible campaigner. Also, Baker adopted key portions of the Democratic Party platform and eased off some of the Tea Party conservative rhetoric. Bay State conservatives have mixed feelings about the next Governor, fearing more of Romney (socialism-lite)  instead of Calvin Coolidge (freedom with a Presidential flair).

 

 

There are many reasons to live in California

Another word out of Massachusetts’ natives? “Patriots”. My favorite team and they are doing so well this year. I hear a lot about Willette Stadium and the playoffs. Go Pats! Go Celtics. Unlike most LA residents, I can’t stand the Lakers.

 

 

Rhode Islanders come to the story, too . I get really excited meeting them. I tell them about the writing I do for the New England press. Often, I ask if they know my friends in Warwick or Providence. We talking about Speaker Fox (now resigned, and in disgrace), or the Chafees. And everyone knows Buddy!

 

The first word out of Rhode Islanders’ mouth to describe their state? Corruption.

 

Yep. No nice way to put it. “Rhode Island is probably the most corrupt state in the country”, one transplant told me.

 

A younger Rhode Islander had moved to California a few months ago. I had to check his ID for a purchase. “You don’t see Rhode Island driver’s licenses too often!” I told him. Same for Rhode Island license plates, but he left before I could take a picture. Like me, he had hoped for a Governor Fung and Mayor Buddy.  Another lady joked about Rhode Island’s diminished public integrity. “I just love to talk!” she admitted. She knew Buddy, laughed when I slammed Dr. Dan. Then she told me she was moving back. “I need to go home and take care of my mother.” Often, family is the only tie that binds Rhode Islanders to their home state.

 

 

For other New Englanders, though, the warmth and relative ease of California has been too good to pass up. 

 

Calling for Speaker Votes (Will Gowdy Make it?)

For the past two days, I have been calling different House reps, telling them to support Rep. Louie Gohmert for Speaker of the House.

Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX), challenging
John Boehner for Speaker

First, I contacted the Congressmen who voted for another speaker two years ago, just after the Fiscal Cliff fiasco.

Then I thought of the most conservative members who had challenged leadership in the past, including Raul Labrador of Idaho and Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina.

Then I looked up lists on line of the most conservative House Reps, provided by National Journal.

After that, news reports trickled in throughout the day of more legislators who refused to support Boehner in today's vote.

I really believe that if more people vote, if more people raise their concerns by calling in or writing, then individual votes, and concerned interest groups can transition from

#MakeDCListen

to

#MakingDCListen

This morning,  I contacted Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) at his Washington DC office. I consider him not only a reliably conservative vote, but a skillful leader who recognizes political realities as well as principled possibilities.

The staffer informed me that the Congressman was not in the Capitol. He was flying into the Capitol, but there are snowstorms along the East Cost which are preventing easy travel from home states to Washington DC.

More than in the past, I understand the physical challenges which face lawmakers, especially our California representatives. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) had to charter a private jet just to make key votes when he was far away on his second abortive Presidential bid.

Congressman Trey Gowdy

I hope that Congressman Gowdy makes it to Washington today and votes for Louie Gohmert as the House Speaker for the 114th Congress.

Zuckerman: Pelosi is Destined for Political Oblivion

ZUCKERMAN: I think Nancy Pelosi has seen her best days and I think she’s going to decline steadily over the next four years. 

Mort Zuckerman sounded like another reliable, conservative voice on the McLaughlin Group this past week (1-2-2015).

He derided climate change as overrated, and hyped up the energy boom which is strengthening local businesses while hindering belligerent petro kleptocracies around the world.

One of his best remarks, however, was about House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who within four years (and leading one of the largest Democratic delegations in a decade), lost the mandate, then the majority following the same damaging, illiberal, regressive policy agenda of President Barack Obama.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Working with the most liberal elements in her caucus, Pelosi has managed to diminish the Democratic Party's influence in Washington for the next two years, perhaps the next decade.

Later, Zuckerman claimed that she displayed the best political theater, most likely because she put on a straight face and claimed to her colleagues and the country that her party's caucus would withstand the 2014 drubbing, and even gain seats.

Did not happen. Her spin and her shame more than destine her for political oblivion.

National Review columnist Michael Barone recounted the political shenanigans of Pelosi and her ultra-liberal predecessors, which made House Democrats more liberal, but also much smaller.

Pelosi succeeded so well, she may soon be out of a job.

Zuckerman: Stuck in the USSR?

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's always on m-m-my mind
Oh, come on

I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boys
Back in the USSR

Beatles - Back In The U.S.S.R Lyrics | MetroLyrics



Mort Zuckerman

In the first McLaughlin Group episode of the New Year 2015, US News and World Report editor Mort Zuckerman gaffed a few times, identifying Russia as The Soviet Union, even though the forced political behemoth of Eastern Europe and Asia had disintegrated de facto in 1989, then official in 1991.

ZUCKERMAN: I think the U.S. energy boom has been underreported. We have had a huge breakthrough in the technology of fracking. It’s changed the whole world and the economy the whole world. It's changed our dependence on foreign oil. It’s changed our alliances in terms of their value to us. It's weakened the Soviet Union, Russia, to an extraordinary degree. 

Then

ZUCKERMAN: Yes, the worst political tactics have been the way we have been relating to the Soviet Union, now Russia, OK? There are all kinds of things we should do. This guy who is running Russia can create havoc for the United States because he has no fear of what the United States will do. 

\Later, Zuckerman self-corrected:

ZUCKERMAN: Yes, I was going to refer to the great leader of Russia whom I don’t think is underrated and I don’t think he’s overrated. He’s done an amazing job with very little, very little other than fear to help him managed his way through a very weak Russian economy.

Was the more liberal, yet Independent commentators lapsus more informed and prophetic than superficially realized?

Russian President Vladimir Putin

With Putin's invasion then annexation of Crimea, followed by military assaults along the Eastern border of Ukraine, the Russian President, psychologically imposing on a weakened global community, is behaving like a Cold War thug, intent on military aggression and self-promotion to hold himself in office. Attacks on free speech, the press, capitalism, and currency manipulation have defined his latest year in office.

Indeed, the expanding energy boom has crippled Russia's economy, but the dictator with democratic trappings in Moscow will not be side-lined so easily.

Zuckerman may have seemed stuck in the past with inadvertent references to Russia as the Soviet Union, but the current putative leader Vladimir Putin (a former KGB official) is replaying Cold War politics. Perhaps Zuckerman's hang-up is prescient rather than absent-minded.

Walker's Right-To-Work Dilemma

Contrary to the assertions of Libertarian economist DanielMitchell and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, right-to-work is not a conflicted attack on unions, but a reform which respects workplace fairness and equity. In 2015, Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin want to initiate this policy. Because of political pressures at home and nationally, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker now confronts his own right-to-work dilemma.

In 2011, Walker faced an uphill fight following the introduction of collective bargaining reforms. Labor unions from all over the world descended on the state capital to stop the bill.  Democratic legislators fled to Illinois to disrupt the quorum process, and the Wisconsin business climate suffered for a period of time because of the illegal walk-outs from public sector employees, who demonstrated vigorously.

 

Walker faces right-to-work dilemma

 

Walker most likely fears that a Wisconsin right-to-work law will incite labor union violence in Madison, and he has a right to worry. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder demurred on right-to-work precisely because of potential union thuggery, on the streets and at the ballot box.

 Walker has a responsibility to ensure efficiency and safety in his state, as well as fiscal, legal, and moral policy reforms. Besides, the governor has other problems to consider, like resolving a budget shortfall, sizing up the required steps for a balanced budget, yet also seizing the opportunity to expand school choice, cut taxes, and reduce spending.

Walker supporters (and detractors) should understand his reticence, even if they believe (as I do) that he should support right-to-work and sign the measure into law.

Why I Support Speaker Gohmert

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)

The Republican Party needs a new turn of leadership in the House of Representatives.

John Boehner (R-OH) was a great minority leader. He stood strong and tall against the Democratic majority in 2009, exposing the cronyism and duplicity of Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) Cap and Trade boondoggle. The California progressive even shoved a three-hundred page rider onto the bill at the last minute.

Boehner was a fantastic fighter then.

When he became Speaker, he began accommodating rather than fighting.

Even when he went along with the House moves to gut key portions of Obamacare, he admitted on Jay Leno's "The Tonight Show" that the shut-down was the Republicans' faults. Leaders are supposed to take the blame for their failures of their organization. Share the glory, take the blame.

Boehner refused to do that, and still he refuses to lead.

Where is the outreach? Where is the coordination with media efforts? Where is the rank-and-file phalanx to inform his caucus of long-term plans to grow the economy, limit government overreach, reform health care?

Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez criticized the overtly nice, gentleman-like approach of House Republicans. With little recourse to House rules, and an unwilling to put up a fight and stake out a clear agenda, they have not accomplished much.

In the wake of this tide of Boehner disappointments, Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) has announced his bid to challenge and unseat Boehner.

I support Speaker Gohmert.

He recognizes the crucial importance of the New Media to hold Establishment politicians and federal overreach in check. Unlike other conservatives, and many Democrats who despise the democratization of the media, Gohmert praised and relied on the influence of the conservative countermentum against mainstream media bias: "This nation has lost a great proponent under Brietbart" and "Thank you, dear God, for sharing this extraordinary gift that was Andrew Breitbart with us. We did not get to keep our gift nearly as long as we wanted, but we are so grateful for such a marvelous gift."

He is more media savvy, outlining in stunning repartee the myriad failures of now resigned Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius.

Like Congressman Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy, Gohmert has relentlessly criticized and cross-examined Obama Administration officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder. He has no compunction against criticizing members of his own party when they make poor choices about investigative matters, including those relating to the Benghazi massacre on September 11, 2012.

He is willing to work with the President on one key issue: declaring war on radical Islam, and has demanded a declaration of war from the President. A pragmatist on Middle Eastern politics, Gohmert supports protecting Christians and Jews, and other persecuted minorities. He is not an anti-government apologist, but a serious conservative.

Gohmert has been a vocal critic of amnesty, not just in word but in deed. He had the audacity (and courage) to call former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a liar regarding border security lapses.  Following frequent visits to the Southern border of the United States, Gohmert indicted the President and his reckless policies for creating the humanitarian crisis. Where was Speaker John Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership to see the result of government laxity in the fact of immigration lawlessness? One of the GOP leaders, Eric Cantor, did not make it, since he lost his seat in a primary challenge later last year.

More recently, he voiced the frustration of Middle America and the conservative base, regarding the CRomnibus legislation:

“Let’s do it together with conservatives. That’s the bulk of our conference, don’t make them take a wrong vote. Let’s fund everything for two months. Let us have a vote on defunding Obama’s amnesty, and we’ll even agree that the Senate can take it out if they take the hard vote to do that and let it go from there to the president.”

“We were willing to work with them to compromise, and not one word,” he added. “As you know, the calls went to the White House when in a time that the speaker needed votes he turned to somebody that he really identifies with, the president and liberal Democrats and got them to help him pass this vote.”

Boehner spoke with the losing President Barack Obama and the diminished Democratic caucus in the House instead of his own party members, when his party received a strong mandate to push against and reverse Obama's regressive agenda. Gohmert slammed the political maneuvering that prevented him and his colleagues from reading the legislation, let alone add riders and amendments.

Gohmert articulates the voters' frustrations, and voices the views and concerns of his Republican conference. He regards Congress as an institution of governance based on the Constitution, the rule of law as opposed to the will of men. He also exposes the business-as-usual failures of a ruling class pushing legislation which no one reads, keeping ordinary folks uninformed. He attacks fellow politicians' choices, without being vulgar or mean-spirited. Most importantly, he is not afraid to take his case to the American public, the media, and on the House floor with colleagues.

Speaker Louie Gohmert would be a welcome transition for the House of Representatives, a final blow to the diminishing Establishment of the Republican and Democratic parties, whose policies have failed or stunted growth, and which the American voters have rejected time and again. Two other House Republicans have announced their intention to vote against John Boehner (Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma and Tom Massie of Kentucky. Gohmert's intentions make three opposed to Boehner.

With 218 votes as Boehner's must-need threshold to retain his post, twenty-nine conservatives voting for the Texas challenger would force a run-off, and the cascading effect to follow could ensure that Speaker Louie Gohmert leads the 114th Congress.

US Senator Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts): 1919-2015

Edward Brooke, former Attorney General and US Senator from Massachusetts, has died in his Florida home. At 95, he retained a vitality of core issues, and passed away quietly from natural causes. A Congressional Medal of Honor winner in 2009, after witnessing the election of the first African-American US President, he could also welcome another Republican US Senator representing the Bay State the following year, a rejection from the same voters against a President whose policies were so illiberal, that even progressive New Englanders said “Stop!”

Born in segregated Washington DC in 1919, Brooke ascended the ranks in a regarded military career, then through legal and political achievements to national office, with great preeminence as well as controversy. From his record of prosecuting local corruption in Massachusetts, Brooke built up a network of support and acclaim which brought him into the Attorney General’s office in 1962, then the US Senate in 1966, later reelected in 1972 (a watershed of Republican victories nationally under a popular incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon and a weakened, unimpressive Democratic challenger). As a Republican in a deeply Democratic state with a 2% black population (where the Kennedy machine had propped up Senators and even a President), Brooke faced long odds, yet won.

Following his reelection loss in 1978, Brooke joined a Washington DC law firm, served as chairman of the Boston Bank of Commerce, then took on leadership roles in diverse, global philanthropic efforts. Retiring to a Coral Gables home in Florida, Brooke passed away with his family by his side.

 

US Senator Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts)

 

Reading about Brooke’s passing today, I recall first learning about him following Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown’s (R-Wrentham) upset in special election 2010. Brown defeated a well-moneyed machine (as did Brooke), replacing the deceased US Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy. Forty years had passed before another Republican would represent the Bay State in the upper chamber. Sadly, media reports obsessed over Brown’s nude photo-ops from his youth (which he had taken while earning his way through college). Apparently, the media were intent on neglecting the Brooke legacy of a minority Republican, a fact which disrupts the liberal narrative of GOP = Old, White Men. ABC news anchor and investigative journalist Barbara Walters shamefully alleged a heated affair with Brooke in her memoir, and on The View. Such lurid details were rightfully ignored. Incidentally enough, similar publicize voyeurism derailed Brooke’s 1978 reelection bid.

I also retold Brooke’s story in defiance of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s uninformed remarks that the Republican Party still retained a “dark vein of intolerance”. Brooke was a walking, talking repudiation of that narrative. Granted, Brooke would have definitely fallen into the class of liberal (i.e. Rockefeller) Republicans, like Susan Collins of Maine: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Fox News indicated his ideology at the outset, but also reminded voters that Brooke was not just the first Black GOP US Senator, but the first one of either party to be popularly elected.

Despite his pro-abortion stance, plus his press for government-enforced equal housing and inner-city busing, Brooke’s stance on civil rights for all Americans holds true for his party, then and now. His expectations for fiscal discipline and individual responsibility never wavered.  For Brooke, civil rights was never about grievance mongering, but equal opportunity. He rejected the virulent rhetoric and violent reactions of the Black Power movement, stating his views cogently in a contentious meeting with Black Power leaders in the early 1970s. While they claimed that Brooke was not black, because he was “in the system”, he declared that he was in the place where he wanted to be, where blacks would have power supervising the military as well as federal money.

In another interview, Brooke affirmed his Republican credentials, indicating that the GOP gave him the nomination for office, and had the better record on civil rights, such as desegregating the Massachusetts National Guard. He also repeated his distaste for “huge government, and huge bureaucracy.”

Reading over the media’s general obituaries, I remember his advice to young black people, which would serve all youth just as well. “I’m a strong believer in the work ethic”, Brooke declared, and advised the same for young people, reminding them that there is no quick route to success. Brooke recounted his childhood in segregated Washington DC, how his mother and grandmother warned him: 'Remember your place now.' Now, that disturbed me." Brooke rejected those warnings from a now long-gone era. In his later years, he told young black children: "Your place is anywhere you want it to be. It's left up to you. You make that decision. "

Stirring words from a trailblazer, indeed. To politicians, he pleaded: “Seek power. There is nothing wrong with power if it’s used wisely, used rightly. Power is essential. Power is what gets things going, and it can be used for good as well as for evil.” He reiterated similar remarks upon receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. He made his place when others rejected him for it, and still encouraged others to do the same. Whatever one’s stance on the issues, Brooke’s life and legacy were admirable.

Social Conservatism = Extremism?

While reading about the Who's Who in California electoral politics, I found out that a former candidate whom I had supported had worked hard to prevent another candidate from running.

 I asked for a few reasons why. His first answer: "I don't support extremists".

 Then I asked why he thought that the candidate was extreme. 

For the same reason that nearly everyone else who's not a social conservative does.

 Since when has social conservatism become a strain of extremism?

 This line of argument reminds me of Saul Alinksy's "Rule for Radicals" shame-baiting. The candidate whom I supported, whom he opposed, defined marriage between one man and one woman. He also believed in the sanctity of life, the essence of the United States Constitution, and the strength of state sovereignty ahead of federal preeminence.

This liberal rebuttal, that anyone leaning right socially conservative is intolerant or extreme, is false. Regarding marriage, the institution is defined between one man and one woman. This reality relies on more than tradition mores, a recognition of the truth, followed by the hard evidence from history and biology that homosexual conduct diminishes life, wealth, and worth. The fact that pro-family advocates have abandoned these salient (yet controversial) remarks does not excuse judges from supporting the lifestyle.

Debate is necessary, along with civility

 On the matter of abortion, technology is exposing a new generation to the intricacies and complexities of human life, even before the baby is delivered from the mother's womb. The genetic information, the foundations of life are present at the moment of conception, and these revelations are an accomplished fact to young people. Even those individuals who were pro-abortion at one time have changed their minds, opening their eyes to the truth that life is not a function of what one sees, but what has been conceived.

 The extremism today is not from those who defend life, marriage, the importance of property, the integration of families, the primacy of choice over mandates, and the necessity of self-protection. The extreme arguments come from those who believe that the consensus of liberal, amoral academics can rewrite the trends which define life and cause communities to thrive. Extremism emanates from those who restructure tolerance to mean "I am right, and you must accept me, or else!"

 Returning to my brief dialogue, I explained that I was not interested in starting a fight, but I just wanted answers. He then responded:

 No worries.

I reject anyone who can't discuss immigration without sounding racist or mean.  It's our fault the borders haven't been secure.

I found this statement particularly offensive. Am I responsible for the lack of border security? Should public institutions shoulder the brunt of the costs, whether in crime, health concerns or economic demand, because of rampant illegal immigration?

Since when did debating an issue lead to charges of "racism"? And what does "sounding mean" have to do with the soundness or salience of an argument?

 It is not the fault of We the People that the border is not secure. Taxpayers should not have to fund public benefits for immigrants, period. The United States federal government should not be subsidizing or supporting illegal immigrants, either.

The fact that borders security has been lax, that crime rates are raising, that state legislatures have enabled mass illegal immigration, is not the fault of "We". In 2014, the voters of liberal Oregon rejected two-to-one drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The necessary push against illegal immigration is not a partisan issue, but a national concern in which Democrats and Republicans share blame and responsibility. Legal immigration and border enforcement falls into the category of social conservatism, to some. The argument that defending borders, life, and marriage is an extreme argument is in itself an extreme reproach, and no one should have to suffer it.

As I pondered my former candidate’s comments, the more I realize that much social debate has devolved into shaming the other side, rather than responding with truth, evidence, and comparison of other options.

Social conservatives should not lie down for these unfounded attacks, but rebut the strain of extremism with the truth. One other point: as I was debating briefly these concerns, the gentleman tried to turn away this argument with “I don’t want to debate this. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.”

That appeal to non-debate is not an answer. The liberal agenda to up-end marriage, terminate life as a matter of inconvenience, or ignore the Constitution in the name of elitist self-esteem cannot be ignored, nor tolerated.

Contending for the Faith: Jude

In a previous post, I wrote about the rising them of conflict in the last two Epistles of the New Testament before Revelation.

In John's Third Epistle, the disciple whom Jesus loved talked about confronting an arrogant Pharisee in the local church, who not only refused to receive him, but was casting out other people. This Pharisee, Diotrephes, loved to be first. When we do not see Jesus as first, foremost, and only in our lives, inevitably we will try to fill that emptiness, and the fears which come with it, by trying to make ourselves God and control other people.

The grace of God shows us not only the favor of our Loving Father, but that He is taking care of all things for us, too!



Jude, the Brother of James

Now, in the last Epistle, Jude, we find a stern tone of earnest concern from the writer:

3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 3-4)

Instead of men and women seeking to pride themselves on their law-keeping, Jude is exhorting fellow believers to watch out for men and women who claim that the grace of God gives us license to sin.

Paul had slammed these perverse distortions early on.

For the record, the Gospel is very clear about what we receive in Christ Jesus:

"38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 38-39)

Now, not once did Paul ever suggest that this redemption would invite license to sin. However, the missing component for many Christians today is that we are not just sinners, but we are dead in trespasses, and we need life (John 10: 10):

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 15: 12)

Grace is not a license to sin, but rather produces empowerment to reign in life: His life:

"15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5: 15-17)

Regarding whether grace becomes a license to sin, check out what Paul wrote in the next chapter:

"1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6: 1-4)

We need Jesus, we need Himself. There is no grace apart from Christ, for He is our life (Colossians 3: 1-4)

Furthermore, grace is more than merely not getting what we do not deserve. Grace is all about God giving us everything, because He paid for it through His Son's death at the Cross, and not through anything that we did or did not do:

"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: 31-33)

Notice that we receive all things with Jesus! If we are busy receiving, then we have no reason to try and achieving anything in our own efforts, including the sins and perversions which people resort to.

His grace defines us:

"20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Galatians 2: 20-21)

His grace drives us:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15: 10)

His grace also defends us:

"7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10)

Grace is not license to sin, for we are dead to sin, and under His grace:

"11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6: 11-14)

Yet in Jude's time, he went out of his way to warn, earnestly, that the grace of God was becoming a distorted justification for sin, rather than justification to break free from sin!

"5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." (Jude 5)

Five is the number of grace, and yet in that verse Jude describes the ancient Israelites who did not receive, did not rest in this grace. Because they did not believe in the Lord, did not draw all their strength from Him, but sought to rely on themselves, they perished in the wilderness.

There is no life, there is no hope, without the grace of God:

"16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 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: 16-18)

If we do not believe on Him, we are condemned already, and there is no way out!

Yet with the gift of righteousness comes life, His life, and thus we are led by His Spirit, not by our flesh:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7: 6)

When the grace of God is preached, we must contend for the truth, that grace is no a license to sin, but the freedom which gives us power over sin. Anyone who says or does otherwise is an anti-Christ. Of course, Paul could not have put it better:

"And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." (Romans 3: 8)

Like Jude, we must make it clear that the grace of God is all about Jesus, and it is the grace of God which teaches us to say "No!" to sin, but "Yes!" to godliness (Titus 2: 11-14)

Gallantry on New Year's Day in NYC

Just before Year 2015 began, Taylor Swift was swinging the night away.

But there was one thing which she could not shake off: the bitter cold of a New Year's Eve in New York City.

The host, Ryan Seacrest, asked her if she was prepared for the cold, or if she could have dressed more warmly.

Honest to the end of the year, Swift swiftly answered "No!" then "Yes!"

Then Ryan Seacrest offered her his coat. She started joking: "Are you stripping? This is a family show!"

Even though she felt ashamed at first, and manifested some of it at the host, Seacrest did not hesitate put his coat on her.

Honest to the end, and gallant to the beginning of the New Year, Seacrest's warm gesture is a good sign that even in the midst of the hype and glitz of a desensitized Hollywood, a warped political culture, and the general fears of the future, there are still good people doing great things for others, not looking for the camera to spotlight their concerns or highlight their help.

This scene not only warmed Swift, but gave me a warm hope for the coming year. Gentlemen still stand for the camera, and good will is still in full supply, regardless of who is watching.

Thanks again, Ryan, hopeful people like you will serve as the true American Idols that this country needs to see and receive.

Happy New Year!