Bondage of Corruption Pt. 2: American Taliban

In “Bondage of Corruption Pt. 1: Culture”; I state that in America today there is a “diversion away from the essence of things–the essence of what is good and what is intrinsically bad–and a preference for promoting the concept of the subjective over the reality of the objective.”

To that I add: This preference for the subjective over the objective, manifests quite often in a twisting of terms and words. Shallow thinking coupled with what often seems disdain for the true meaning of words, gives rise to malformed concepts.

These semantical mutations take on a life of their own when allowed to remain unchallenged. The American Taliban is just such a term and concept.

American leftist more so than any other group in our nation specialize in this sort of thing. It is one of their primary tactics, employed to stoke the emotional furnaces of liberal reactionaries and to silence, or marginalize ideological opponents.

The Tea Party forms, standing for limited government and fiscal responsibility, with constituents representing Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They hold rallies to unite people of all walks of American life in a singular cause: Reign in an out of control American government.

The left renames them “Tea baggers” a slang term for a sexual activity and paint their fellow, Americans as uneducated racists. It doesn’t matter many of the Tea Party movements most popular speakers and political figures are Black. The left “tars” them as brainwashed “Toms” and “sellouts”. The Democrat Party has a lot of experience with Tar. Unfortunately my people have a very short memory.

The left loves “diversity” but cannot abide diversity of thought! The only thing the liberal left fears and hates more than people putting aside what they “feel” in favor of thinking is Christianity!

They don’t necessarily hate religion, but they have a mad on for Christianity. It is more  fear than anger. The left only becomes angry with Christianity when those who actually believe God stand in opposition to them. The left fears people will actually begin to believe what God says.

If there is one movement above all others the Democrat Party and the liberal left exerts full power to marginalize it is Christianity. This is something I wish Black Christians could come to understand. The Democrats will come to your church to solicit your votes, but the truth is not in them.

Democrats do not go to churches teaching the full doctrine of Christ and they know the ones that do. Democrats go to churches most likely to preach social messages than theological messages.

If you go to a church where you have never heard a sermon against abortion or upholding the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. A church that seldom emphasizes sin and repentance of sin, a church that talks more about God giving you a breakthrough on your finances, than the inherent sinful nature of man, you are likely to see Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden show up.

If your church dogmatically clings to Christ being the only way to salvation, it’s not likely you will have a visitor from the Democrat party. This is why Barack Obama said:

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

This is not a Christian statement--This is the statement of an unbeliever. It is also the way the overwhelming majority of liberals think. Only Black Christians vote for Democrats in numbers and they do so by putting aside their faith.

Liberal Democrats hate statements like:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Jay said those words–John Jay, who served as President of the Continental Congress and as the first Chief Justice of the United States. (Do you think he knew what the Constitution says about church and state?) He was also the 2nd Governor of New York, who after several attempts, finally passed a law to emancipate the slaves of his state in 1799. Today he would be called a right wing fanatic!

I was called a member of the American Taliban a few weeks back by a liberal friend of mine. I mention it because it underscores the point I am trying to make. The meaning of words, the essence of things, have no meaning for liberals because they do not think. They feel!  When people begin to think they cease to be liberals.

Conservatives ask what do you think about so and so? Liberals ask how do you feel about so and so? A liberal may actually ask you what you think? But once you begin to tell them, when they respond, it’s plain they really want to know how you feel.

The word Taliban is a Pashtun word borrowed from Arabic. It literally translates as students. Students is an accurate word as the movement began with students recruited from Islamic fundamentalist madrassas (schools).

When the Taliban seized political power in Afghanistan after scores of bloody massacres, they implemented a very strict, anti-modern, interpretation of Sharia law in the regions it controlled. Here is a partial outline of what the Taliban outlawed:

“pork, pig, products made with human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. Employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls.”

There’s not a whole lot on that list I don’t personally participate in. Yet I am labeled an American Taliban. This is possible because it does not matter to a liberal what the Taliban is in reality.

The first use of the term “American Taliban” appeared with the capture of John Phillip Walker Lindh during the 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attack.
Lindh is one of the few people in the world for whom the appellation American Taliban actually applies.

Applying the term to Christians who hold to an orthodox Christian faith in America, including opposition to abortion, defending the Biblical definition of marriage and traditional Christian values, is a liberal attempt to marginalize Fundamental Christianity. The left wants very much to link and equate fundamental Christianity with the bloody excesses of fundamentalist Islam.

Employing the term American Taliban, betrays the liberals overall lack of depth and shallow thinking. People who use such terms know nothing about Christianity or Islam on a fundamental level. And frankly, they don’t care to!

Islam in America uses this lack of depth in liberals to further their agenda. Islamists in America know liberals are clueless as to what their faith teaches and they know liberals hate Christianity more than Islam.

Even though Islam is a conservative faith, (if you are gay try getting married in an Islamic state) opposed to the same kinds of things Christianity is opposed to, Muslims know, if they claim they are set upon, the left will not look too closely at their true agendas and pave the way for them to do what ever they want. Because it feels good to them.

Liberals believe if they appease Muslims they will not become fundamentalists. Liberals believe Muslims become terrorists not because the Qur’an teaches proselytizing with the sword and warfare against unbelievers, but because Muslims do not have enough social justice.

Liberals dread fundamentalist Islam and  are so reticent to offend them, they dare not call them Islamic terrorists even when they blow things up and kill people--Opting instead for meaningless terms like “man caused” disasters.

Where liberals fear fundamentalist Islam, they loathe Christianity! Even though Christians don’t make a habit of strapping Composition 4 to their bodies and don’t blow people up shouting Jesus is Lord, They still insist traditional Christian values are as big a danger as Islam. This is why they are comfortable calling fundamentalist Christians American Taliban.

The word Christian is a good one! It is my prayer more liberals come to understand what Christian truly means. The disciples of Christ were first called Christians in the  Holy Bible in the Book of Acts 11:26:

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

Fear of Christianity is demonstrated in at least two ways pertinent to this article. There is the liberal fear people will embrace the teachings of the Holy Bible and then see the foundation of liberal philosophy and Democrat's politics are inherently contrary to not only God, but the best interests of this nation.

The second type of fear is displayed in people who say they have accepted Christ. it can on occasion be found in conservatives as well. It is a fear to unabashedly identify yourself as a Christian for fear of being rejected by people.

These are the people who don’t want faith to play a roll in political debate. People who are afraid to offend others by standing beside Christ and affirming what He affirms. They want salvation and the promises of God, but they don’t want to bear the cross themselves.

Even the simple term Christian is no longer good enough, the term has to be parsed. Religion is one of the first things I look at when I acquire a new Facebook acquaintance. I am amazed at the number of people I know are Christian who leave their religious philosophy blank. How a person identifies themselves spiritually tells a lot about them. You see pseudo Christian descriptions like:

“believer in the Great I Am”  or “I am desiring to be like Christ”

(I have found this particularly true amongst academics claiming faith in Christ)
Ontologically, who is the Great I AM to you? I’ve heard Buddhists claim they desire to be like Christ! Do you desire to be like the Christ who says?:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

and

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.”  Matthew 10:32-35

Or President Obama’s Christ of the so called liberal and nebulous “Christian tradition?"  The Jesus who lives only in the liberal mind, whose followers believe you can go down a different path to reach God?

This is an important question, because the Jesus Christ who says the liberal favorite:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31

...Is the same Jesus Christ quoted above! You can’t accept the Christ of Mark 12 without the Christ of John 14 and Matthew 10! At least not if you are a Christian. It may cost you some friends and votes if you are a politician, but the truth is the truth!

Just before the verse from Acts calling Christ’s disciples Christians for the first time, we find out it was a dangerous time to be identifying yourself with Christ, there was serious persecution for believers then. This is to be expected, it is happening all over the globe even today.

I am a “fundamentalist”, I believe the whole Holy Bible and I make no apologies for it, though I will offer an apologetic of the Christian faith! Insufferably stupid liberal terms like Tea Bagger and “American Taliban” as rendered by ignorant, dull witted people, I dispassionately reject.

I prefer American Christian!

Digital Publius

Trump Psychosis!

Psychosis is defined (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition) as an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality".

Leading up to the 2008 election, we saw the rise of a first term Senator from the state of Illinois named Barack Obama. This man literally came out of nowhere, but not without a great deal of heavy and highly questionable baggage.

Barack Obama, much to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Political machine’s consternation, was able to convince the liberal grass roots throng that not only was his baggage not the least bit heavy, but he had actually lost the claim check for his baggage completely.

Thus, the Bill Ayers’, Jeremiah Wrights’, Saul Alinskys’, along with the then-junior-senator’s overall lack of transparency, stayed packed neatly away in Obama’s leaden Samsonite, quietly circling alone on the conveyor belt of rational thought, before being placed in public scrutiny’s Lost and Found department.

Philip Berg, an attorney acting on behalf of the Clinton machine, filed a motion in federal district court on August 21, 2008, against Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama. The Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission chose to ignore the fact that Obama was allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the "Certification of Live Birth" posted on Obama's website, is a forgery.

Though the complaint was dismissed as frivolous, it began President Obama’s commitment to spending as much money as necessary in legal fees to keep his credentials suppressed for whatever reason he chooses to do so!

As Berg was an activist attorney acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign this, in a way, makes Mrs. Clinton the De facto mother of the “Birther” movement!

Yet somehow the stigma of racism dogging those who question Mr. Obama’s eligibility contemporaneously, somehow fails to be affixed to the Democrats and the Clinton machine responsible for getting the “birther” ball rolling.

All of this is irrelevant to Democrats because true liberal Obama supporters couldn’t possibly care less if Obama is or is not a natural born citizen, just like the left doesn’t care Barack was the least qualified candidate in the field from either side of the political aisle.

Democrats didn’t care about Obama’s less than savory and, in many cases, un-American close associations. Nor did they care despite our nation’s fight against socialism for the better part of the 20th century, Mr. Obama displayed socialist proclivities.

Even now, in the face of President Obama’s numerous broken promises and utter failure in dealing with the countries economic woes, for some the man can do no wrong. Without regard for the “no more cowboy diplomacy” candidate and Nobel Peace Prize laureate recently launching an attack against another country.

To Obama’s base it doesn’t matter he explicitly contradicts his own criteria for using U.S. military force and, I might add, does so without congressional approval, the true Obama sycophants hold fast to their belief in Hope” and “Change”.

Thus, we are not surprised to read statements such as:

“I simply don't care about the facts you're throwing out. What I care about is getting our country back on track...”

Even more troubling is the way this statement ends:

”…and Donald Trump is the only one that will do that. I don't care who he hired in his business. I don't care that a Democrat is his campaign advisor, I don't care who he has donated money to.”

How is such an irresponsible statement different from the unsettlingly similar statements, thoughtlessly spouted by Obama supporters, we on the right expressed contempt for over the past few years?

I spent the better part of last week engaging with people who are ardent supporters of a Donald Trump presidential candidacy with negligible success. Trump supporters seem as immune to rational argumentation as the most psychotic Obama loose bolts.

In response to an invitation to read my article “Cmon’ Folks, Let’s Get Real” and listen to  Mark Levin’s blistering critique of Trump’s conservative bona fides, the afore quoted Trump acolyte wrote:

“Your article shows you hate Trump so silly for me to even respond to you any further. You'd never have anything good to say about him. That's fine.”

I may have a biased perspective when it comes to my own ability to convey ideas with the written word, but I dogmatically insist there is nothing within my article intimating I harbor hatred for Donald Trump--at least not to a rational individual!

The difference is this article is not about rational individuals, it’s about people on both sides of the political aisle so blinded by rhetoric, they refuse to examine their political sacred cows!

I wish I could say Trump psychotics were a rare breed, but I have run into an inordinate number of them in the last week. Like their liberal Obama kindred, Trump followers refuse to acknowledge either the truth or the record of their guy.

It doesn’t matter Trump, in his book “The America We Deserve” asserts the U.S. needs a universal healthcare plan like Canada’s. Trump writes:

“Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,”

For Donald supporters, Does this mean, as long as Trump says he wants to overturn Obama’s socialist plan so he can promote Canada’s socialist healthcare plan, a socialist plan is okay?

Hasn’t President Obama and the liberal left made it a point to talk more about what American’s “deserve” instead of what American’s can earn on their own? Is it just me?

The leftist mainstream media has spent the last few years blaming the Tea Party for taking the establishment Republicans too far to the right. Over the past few weeks, this rhetoric was ratcheted up by Democrat Congressional leadership. Chuck Schumer made it abundantly clear the left’s agenda was to marginalize the Tea Party and conservatism as much as possible, highlighting the Tea Party’s “extreme” views!

Trump back in 1999 on “Meet the Press”, told the late Tim Russert:

“I really believe the Republicans are just too crazy, right?” he went on to say; “I mean, just what’s going on is just nuts.”

Keep in mind this was 1999, after the George W. Bush nomination was a foregone conclusion. At this point Trump split with the Republican Party faithful and spent the next eight years delivering liberal talking points.

Yet we are asked to believe Trump has now joined and identifies with the far more conservatively
orthodox and “extreme” right wing Tea Party? “ Cmon’ folks! When was Trump’s political “Road to Damascus” moment?

It seems Trump Psychotics are as willing to disregard Trump’s past as the Obama Psychotics are when breathlessly devoting themselves to their savior of all things good.

For some it doesn’t matter Trump just a few years ago contributed to the Who’s Who of anti-Tea Party candidates. Money for Harry Reid and Anthony Weiner and the self appointed champion of the extreme view of the Tea Party, Chuck Schumer! After all Trump does say: “I’m a business man”.

Trump gave campaign funds to conservative turncoat Charlie Crist, but no money for Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio. So much for Trump’s it’s “good business” to give to both sides cock and bull story.

Beyond the “good business man” malarkey, if you’re successful and powerful and truly believe Obama and the left are wrecking the country, would you help fund the destruction?

I mean, what happens when the side you say you don’t like wins? Does it make sense to pay into a political philosophy you say is hostile to business because you’re a businessman? Does this imply Trump is putting his business ahead of the overall good of the nation, because his explanation certainly implies so! Think People!

Is Donald Trump a born again conservative? Perhaps. I haven’t seen anything beyond his rhetoric to convince me a decade worth of conservative bashing should be disregarded just because Trump has poorly advanced some eligibility arguments!

Not when there are so many longstanding and true conservative voices being drowned out who make the same statements about the economy, foreign markets and returning to American pride with far more intelligence and credibility!

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15

Shake off the psychosis! Let’s return to the rational thought separating us from the reactionary left and their ill developed ability to discern between feeling good and the pragmatic truth of the type of leaders we should look for to steer our ship of state back to a steady and prosperous course.

Digital Publius

Cmon' Folks, Let's Get Real!

One of my favorite songs of all time is “Stand”; by Sly and the Family Stone! I don’t know Sly’s politics, although Sly may be a degenerate of the highest order, in Stand he raised universal, even Biblical truths!

If I were head of the RNC, this would be the song I would play before every rally! One of  “Stand’s” copious, steeped in wisdom lyrics, reads:



“Stand,
You've been sitting much too long,
There's a permanent crease in your right and wrong”

Last week the President declared his candidacy for the 2012 election, which will be perhaps the most critical one in the 21st. Century. I believe it will set the tone for America’s moral course and philosophy for the next hundred years.

It is imperative that as Conservatives we “Stand” for what we know is “right” and in opposition of what we certainly know is “wrong”! The courts again will be a major issue. We cannot allow the left to win again. There is too much at stake! Conservatives cannot afford to have the Supreme Court loaded with youthful, liberal justices primed to serve on the bench for decades.

The left is pulling out all of the stops. This election really needs to be about morality and principles without compromise. In fact, I am beginning to hate the word, “compromise”!

Compromise may have begun life as a concept nobly, but in modern America it has since warped into acquiescence.

Acquiescence is what happens when one of the compromising parties seems consistently to be the only one making concessions. This is surely the case in American politics today.

At no time has this sad truth been more easily recognizable than in the recent battle to pass a Federal budget for the nation’s fiscal year. To begin with, Republicans asked for a drop in the bucket and even that was reduced by the Democrats to a moist smudge.



Republicans couldn’t even manage to take a stand for the social riders they had placed in the budget. As a nation, if we’re getting basics like the right to life wrong, how on earth can we get anything else right? How long will we “Stand” for compromising on life?

The narrative during the budget debate was completely controlled by the media and the right lay down passively and took it. We who call ourselves conservatives are again allowing the media to shape our actions and thinking. Even on the grass roots level.

The amount of adjustment made to the budget was so infinitesimal, it could be claimed pyrrhic.  To paraphrase the eponymous King Pyrrhus: “ ‘One more such victory would utterly undo’ the country!”

Ironically, if this woefully inadequate and largely symbolic gesture towards fiscal responsibility had not been passed, we would not have had the money to pay the troops necessary to even have (God forbid) such a victory as Pyrrhus had at Heraclea against the Romans.

The Republicans lack the confidence in the American people’s support to properly wage this battle for the nation’s soul. We are too easily distracted! The left understands this and they use it to their advantage.

This is why the left, in truth, loves the question of the President’s eligibility to hold the office. There is legitimacy in questioning Mr. Obama’s reticence in sharing his credentials and records, but, this is a marginalizing issue. It is meat for the Conservative base and it should be of concern to the whole nation, but... it is not.

We on the right claim to understand how tragically and blindly supportive the left is when it comes to President Obama. That may indeed be the case when it comes to the liberal voting base. However, it is not true of the media or the political and economic powers behind the Democrats and Mr. Obama. This group knows exactly what Obama is!

It is the powers behind the Democrats, who convinced the conservatives John McCain was the offering to be placed in sacrifice before the Obama machine in 2008. It is happening again.

We keep seeing these brand name media straw polls coming out touting Mitt Romney as the Republican frontrunner. Meanwhile, no one we know ever talks about Romney except to say; “We don’t want him.”

Every straw poll conducted on conservative grassroots sites like the ones here on Digital Publius or Freedom Torch all suggest a decidedly different narrative than the one conveyed in the mainstream media.

Polls on all the grassroots sites show conservatives desiring to back candidates that  express the values and perspective that reflects their worldview... candidates who are proven conservatives. Not wishy washy politicians who follow the political climate.

This is what nags at me about the blossoming Tea Party support for Donald Trump! I have to admit I find it amusing that Trump makes so many leftist talking heads appear to squirm. Trump is saying all of the right things right now,  but after a period of sober minded reflection, I am not comfortable with Trump.

In the back of my mind I keep thinking about the Donald Trump that appeared so often on “Don Imus In The Morning” reveling in  Bush bashing a few years ago. The Trump who was so tragically short sighted when it came to the war in Iraq, and who was was pro-”choice”.  This Donald Trump:

Contrast that video with this more recent appearance by “The Donald”!

It seems The Donald has merely transposed George W. Bush’s name with Barack H. Obama’s. The most telling thing, the thing we should be paying closest attention too, is the attitude of the media-figures Trump talks to.

If we were going strictly by the leftist talking points In the first video, it would be impossible to tell Trump from Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow or even Keith Olbermann and that was just a few years ago mind you.

Donnie Deutsch was only too eager to feed into The Donald’s all too frequent anti-Bush diatribes. This really looks no different from the way Matt Lauer and David Gregory supported Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer last week on the morning shows as they presented the DNC’s talking points and a singular unopposed perspective on the budget battle.

In the second video, we again see Trump being interviewed by Donnie Deutsch--This time we are treated to Deutsch and the rest of the panel smirking and derisively dismissing Trump as he spouts so called “birther” arguments! Arguments long since dismissed by people who have been fighting this battle since Obama came on the scene.

Fringe arguments like the President’s “Grandmother in Kenya”, long abandoned for their lack of strong evidential integrity. He is bringing up issues that have all been dealt with by the left, whether you find the answers credible should not be your bone of contention. It is a question of advancing persuasive arguments to the American people.

Anyone on the left worth their beans, who is prepared, could take Trump apart as we saw when he appeared on CNN, Suzanne Malveaux ate his lunch. The most powerful question that can be put in play when it comes to this issue is: Why is the President fighting so hard and committing so much money to suppressing his credentials? Why?

This is the question that no one ever answers. Trump has brought it up in a few interviews, but Donald never presses for an answer. He was so thoroughly handled by Malveaux that he never even asked that most pivotal question. The bottom line is this: This is not an issue you can win new votes with. It plays great with the base, but not the independents.

I refuse to believe Trump is  unaware of this, or the seemingly reasonable apologetics forwarded by Obama’s supporters on the weaker “birther” arguments. Trump is too smart! Or perhaps I give him too much credit.

I do not believe that Trump is a true conservative. 

I think Trump is nothing more than a complicit distraction to draw people away from the candidates we really need to support, who are true, longstanding conservatives. I don’t necessarily mean long time politicians, I mean clear, consistent and unwavering conservative voices.

Trump is a media creation--A left wing media creation! His show the “Apprentice” airs on NBC, while his network’s boss, Jeffrey Immelt is President Obama’s appointed head of the Jobs and Competitiveness Council (whatever that is) for goodness sake.

Trump’s bid for conservative support is nothing more than theater! Liberal stagecraft at it’s finest and most deceptive. Do not be fooled! “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” It seems almost like the birth certificate issue is a faint.

You let the whole “birther” issue hit a fevered pitch as advanced by perhaps the nation’s greatest “pitch” man. Make him the champion of the issue, he secures conservative support and then “boom goes the dynamite”, the President finally submits and releases the long form birth certificate, conservatives look foolish and petty and Obama wins a second term.

A far more likely scenario sees the right marginalized even further so that we are forced to nominate the common since candidate the media really wants us to choose. So, again we offer a sacrifice like the feckless and unelectable Mitt Romney instead of a true conservative.


Sly’s song ends:

Stand
Don't you know that you are free
Well at least in your mind if you want to be
Everybody
Stand, stand, stand

Free your minds of the media’s manipulation this time around. Let’s not buy into the newly conservative Trumps or the chimerical Romneys. Let’s get real and support a conservative who has always been a conservative.

As always, I am reminded of Holy Scripture, specifically, Paul sharing the Gospel with the pagans in Athens at Mars Hill. The Holy Bible relates:

(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) Acts 17:21

Let’s not be like the Athenian pagans always in pursuit of some “new thing”! The essence of conservatism is conserving those things we know are true and real! Donald Trump I am afraid is neither!

Digital Publius

How Now Mr. President?

In a recent exchange on my profile page on Facebook a friend, and I mean a real life friend, someone that I have known for decades and of whom I am exceedingly fond, made a typical attack from the left when he avowed:

“We saw Bush/Cheney's open-hearted outreach at the Superdome in New Orleans. The only minority group the GOP is interested in is the Fortune 500.”

In response I countered:

“Not so my brother--Bush spent more money on entitlement programs for the poor than any President in history. Bush also sent more money in aid to Africa than any President in history.”

My friend scoffed so I provided the documented proof of what I’d asserted in regards to entitlements and Africa, which was met with the also typical leftist disregard for facts in favor of what they want to believe. As I stated in the thread: Facts are to a liberal what garlic is to Count Dracula - Something to be avoided at all costs.

The truth of the matter is that in Africa, Bush was adored because his policies saved legions of lives there. The liberal championed banning of DDT, killed millions in Africa. Bush countered that with a program that distributed Mosquito netting all over the continent, protecting people from malaria and other diseases that were wreaking havoc on the population. President, George W. Bush was also responsible for sending over an enormous amount of money to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

It is interesting to note that one of Mr. Obama’s very first acts as President, was under cover of night, Barack Obama followed the lead of Bill Clinton and signed an order lifting the Mexico City Policy originally implemented by Ronald Reagan. The policy had been reinstated by George W. Bush before being again overturned by President Obama.

The Mexico City Policy banned the use of U.S. taxpayers dollars for funding abortions abroad. The majority of those funds for “family Planning” went towards aborting African babies. Bush sent money to save the lives of the African people, Son of Kenya, Obama sends money to end African lives.

Liberals would argue that aborting children in Africa alleviates suffering and eases tensions in a strapped land that cannot afford to feed it’s people. On Digital Publius. I often quote Romans 3:8 because within that passage we find encapsulated the essence of liberal wrongheadedness:

“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.”

We are again facing difficult questions in the African nation of Libya where we are acting without clear mission or intent. Moreover, we also have no idea as to the true motives of those we’re aiding. Even the mainstream media has reported that many of the Libyan rebels are hardened Al Qaeda fighters who hate America.  And we’re debating whether we should arm the Libyan rebels?

All this in contradistinction to the circumstances, which in 2007 President Obama himself said were necessary to engage in war:

“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. History has shown us time and again...that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”

Yet, that is precisely what Obama did as president! For a person so adamantly against the prospects of a war without goals, Obama seems like “a greyhound in the slips, straining upon the start”. In no way, shape, or form could it be construed that Libya constitutes an “imminent threat” to our nation. Yet “In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove”, Mr. Obama did act, and the military action was quickly conceived and prosecuted.

Not at all like a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

Notwithstanding Libya in fact having no strategic value whatsoever for America, Libya does not even play a roll in America’s energy needs, the North African nation only provides 2% of our oil. Add to that a complete lack of Congressional input, let alone approval and it is a puzzlement how this all happened so fast.

As it pertains to the humanitarian motivation for our intervention, I can’t help but remember what the President wrote in his book “The Audacity of Hope.” Obama argued if our nation got involved with Iraq in a humanitarian endeavor without a well-established plan that the American people and the world could understand and support, the United State’s efforts would not be seen as legitimate. 
At that time, President Obama even questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”

Why indeed? The question still remains even with a change in venue. Why Libya? why not Darfur or the Côte d'Ivoire? Well, in my estimation, the answer is foreign in origin: We are in a fight to aid our European friends. Bosom companions like France and Italy who procure the lion's share of Libya’s oil exports. We are not acting in Libya for our concerns, nor are we acting to help the Libyan rebels.

It seems likely; the French Connection offers a good reason why we are not acting to help the Ivory Coast as well. Not only does the Ivory Coast keep France knee deep in cocoa and swimming in coffee, recently off the small nation’s coast oil was discovered.

Adding interest for the French, in a current Ivory Coast election, the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo was defeated under questionable circumstances, prompting Gbagbo to refuse to abdicate power. Coincidentally, I am currently building a website for a local lawyer who happens to be from the Ivory Coast. I asked him what he thought of the circumstances in his homeland.

My friend declared his loyalty to Gbagbo and stated that the French backed and supplied Alassane Ouattara, (the “winner” of what my friend called the “corrupt” election for Ivory Coast President) and his supporters are murderous thugs. My friend’s words  confirmed all of the reports that I’d read in international papers.

The French and the U.N. backed Ouattara, stand by while Ouattara’s forces slaughter civilians by the thousands as they attempt to force Gbabgo to step down. In fact, President Obama’s United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice has also gone on record asking Gbabgo to step down.

Meanwhile Gbabgo’s requests for a recount and an investigation into the election have been ignored.

The U.N. and the E.U. make statements suggesting they fear Gbabgo is responsible for human rights abuses. That’s good enough for the French. However, we know that Ouattara’s thugs are murdering people.

How the left can continually be wrong when it comes to Africa is beyond me. Especially when one considers this administration’s close familial ties to the continent. As it stands, the emerging facts seem to suggest that we are not acting in North Africa because of any imminent threat to our nation, which was what Senator Obama forcefully proclaimed was necessary in 2007.

Who knows what’s really going on in the Ivory Coast, or anywhere in Africa for that matter. We are not acting for any strategic reason that I can fathom, or even for what Libya has to offer. It seems that America is in Libya because the European Union wants us to be.

I am reminded of the immortal words of the Bard as King Harry warns the Bishop of Canterbury to count the consequences before inciting the realm to war.

“Therefore take heed how you impawn our person, How you awake our sleeping sword of war: We charge you, in the name of God, take heed; For never two such kingdoms did contend Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops Are every one a woe, a sore complaint”

How now Mr. President - Why act in Libya and not the Côte d'Ivoire?

Digital Publius

Israel, Still God's People!

As happens on occasion when I aspire to write on a political subject, God has a better idea.  Thus, this morning I was studying the book of Exodus, doing research for an article that I had a mind to make a companion piece to my last article “My People, My People!”.

I was pouring through the relation of the plagues as recorded in Exodus inflicted upon Egypt and the subsequent results leading to the inevitable liberation of God’s “peculiar” people.

As I read the very origin of the nation of Israel, I was struck by a passage which screamed forth from those bygone days, giving me an understanding of Israel’s nature and its still “peculiar” people today.
Specifically, I read God’s instructions to the Hebrews in regards to the marking of Passover, wherein God instructs:

Exodus 12:43-46
“¶And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 44  But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. 45  A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 46  In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.”

That was the set up; now here comes the bit that really struck me:

“47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48  And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49  One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”

I must confess that, as a “born again” Christian, Israel is never far from my mind! I am always disturbed when the apple of God’s eye is impugned or attacked. Israel means so much to God and, by extension, Israel should mean a great deal to those of us who profess a faith in the God of Israel.

Last May, during an interview with Rabbi David Nesenoff for RabbiLive.com, when asked what she thought of the Israelis, Helen Thomas, the grand dame of the Presidential Press Corps, opined: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.” Thomas went on to say: “Remember these people (The Palestinians) are occupied, and it’s their land.” When asked where the Israelis should go, she retorted: “They can go home, to Germany and Poland and America and everywhere else.”

Helen Thomas is wrong as to whom the land belongs. She is wrong spiritually, as well as historically. Israel’s claim to the land is unimpeachable to the unbiased student of history, a subject I will leave for a later article. The spiritual claim we will deal with in the here and now.

God is in the people-saving business and He never closes or takes a holiday! The Holy Bible makes it plain that it was not just Hebrews who left Egypt on the day of Exodus. God says there were others who were “Strangers” among the Hebrews.

When you examine Exodus 12 verses 48-49 above, God says that if the “strangers” will keep the Passover, and be circumcised, “they shall be as one that is born in the land.” God says under such circumstances the "strangers" that keep God’s covenant are covered by God and therefore God’s people.

It seems that Helen Thomas, whose Lebanese immigrant parents raised her in the Greek Orthodox faith, puts more credence in the doctrine of Lebanese Muslims than the faith she grew up in. The Bible also makes it plain to whom the land of Israel belongs:

Exodus 13:4,5
“This day came ye out in the month Abib. 5  ¶And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.”

God repeats it in verse 11:

“ ¶And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,”

Easy to understand and right there on the surface of the text, it says that God gave the land to the Israelis. As for the Canaanites, the Hittites and all the other “ites”, Israel was God’s instrument of punishment meted out to people who were by all accounts Biblical and secular, exceedingly wicked and vile.

In Scripture, there is always a surface meaning and a deeper spiritual understanding. The spiritual understanding is far more important but often missed by people whose only ambition is to denigrate God, His people and His Word!

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2: 14

This is certainly the case in the recounting of the first Passover. As an example of how God lays out dual meanings lying below the surface, let us take a look at Exodus Chapter 12:

Exodus 12:21-23
"Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. 22  And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. 23  For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you."

The Hebrews acted in faith that the blood of a lamb would spare them from the wrath of their righteous God, and God was faithful to spare them by that blood. God used that same pattern again; He sacrificed His Son, the perfect Lamb of God on behalf of all the “Strangers” in the world. As Christians, we have faith in the blood of Christ shed for the remission of our sin.

As on the first Passover, God will see Christ’s covering and pass over us as well:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:28,29

Today, it seems God is using the ways of Exodus 12:47-49. God performs His promises down to the minutest detail. Exodus 12:46 quoted above, by itself could be the subject of at least three completely different messages. But, what sticks out as odd, is God decrying the Passover Lamb’s bones could not be broken.

In the prophetic Psalm 34 we see the message again:

“ He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. 21  Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. 22  The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.”

This is interesting when one considers the manner of Roman crucifixion to which Christ was subjected; On the cross, to hasten death, the subject's legs were broken. Yet, in the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy, not one of the Lord’s bones was broken.

“For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” John 19:37

Helen Thomas is back in the news. It has been recently reported Helen took part in an in-depth interview for Playboy magazine. I suggest that she hearken back to her Christian roots and consider what God says about Israel before she follows the world.

The very existence of Israel as a nation in the modern world is a miracle! Israel was completely destroyed by the Romans. As an insult, the Emperor Hadrian renamed it Palestine after the Jews ancient enemy, the Philistines. The reforming of Israel, after a millennia long Jewish diaspora, is a testament to God’s power to bring to fruition what He promises.

Based on the world’s animus towards Israel, it is indeed a “burdensome stone”! Yet, the United States has always been a staunch supporter of Israel. I pray we remain so. In many ways of late, our present administration has been non-supportive of Israel. Helen Thomas, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, who also recently resurfaced with an anti Israeli screed, along with all others who call themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever, would do well to heed the Word of the Lord:

“Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:1-3

Christ’s work on the cross fulfilled the blessing “all the families of the earth” part. However, it does not follow that the cursing part has been rescinded.

Digital Publius

My People, My People!

In my last article “What Would Digital Publius Do?”, I make the simple point; if the 
Holy Bible were tampered with as so many anti-Christ opponents of God’s will maintain,
 the people responsible for the alleged malfeasance did a poor job of it. All of the 
tiresome things God put in place in His Word to restrain man from exploiting his fellow
man remain intact.

Indeed, the truth of the matter is, if one seeks to use Christianity as a medium for
 subjugation, you’ll find the unmolested Holy Bible a poor ally in the pursuit.



I assert in “What Would Digital Publius Do?”:



“No, my friends, when man seeks to usurp the Living Word of God, man does it from the 
outside, by casting aspersions upon the Holy Bible and placing human wisdom above
 what was revealed to man in Scripture. You don’t change God’s Word, you reject it!”

Hold on to your proverbial hats, gentles; I could not have wished for a better example
 of my thesis made manifest than Lawrence O’Donnell’s recent rant against Fox News
 commentators Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck! This video has to be seen to be believed!

“A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.” Proverbs 14:6:

Lawrence O’Donnell was chosen by MSNBC to replace the equally half baked and
exceedingly unwise Keith Olbermann as purveyor of all things secular and pig ignorant.
O’Donnell joins a lineup rife with Maddows and Schultzes who have nothing but disdain
for Christianity and everything wholesome and lovely.

That O’Donnell attempts to intimate Beck meant to suggest the happenings in
Japan literally are a part of the end of the world ontologically, suggesting Beck thinks we are
in the midst of Armageddon, is of course specious and purposely misleading. Though Beck is a Mormon, O'Donnell makes no distinctions and is unabashedly attacking Christians and the Christian faith.

This drives me headlong into the subject of this article and a question which is the goad
that keeps me writing Digital Publius: "My people, my people, how long will you ally yourself with the ungodly?"

I began Digital Publius in March of 2008 out of frustration and utter bewilderment as I
watched the people in my church celebrating the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama
for President of the United States. Everything Obama stands for and stood for then,
was expressly against the precepts of the God we gathered together on Sundays to
worship.

Obama is wrong on spiritual issues like gay marriage and abortion. As I illustrated in my article “Comrade God?,” from a Scriptural perspective, Obama is also wrong on social issues. Moreover, when it comes to economics, he is enamored with the same socialist paradigm still failing everywhere it has ever been implemented.

The earlier Digital Publius articles were sent directly to an email list of my fellow church
members. It was my intent to spark discussion and to perhaps get people to look at
the election with the mind of Christ as believers should do with all things. This is best
accomplished by comparing what a candidate stands for with the precepts of God.

What I got was a bunch of people I really care about asking me to take them off my email list.

There is a disconnect when it comes to Black Christians and their ability to discern the
ungodly nature of the Democrat Party. Indeed, there is a disconnect between Black
people in general when it comes to recognizing the great harm that liberalism and the
secular humanist agenda advanced by the Democrat party has wrought in our communities.
Christians, however, ought to know better.

The truth of the matter is the only body of people who identify themselves as Christians voting for Democrats in any numbers, are Black Christians. If you are a Christian and you habitually vote for Democrats, regardless of race, you do so in spite of your faith!

Myself being a Black Christian I have the occasion to talk to other Black Christians every single day. Just last Friday I was talking to a group of ladies about the situation in Japan and one of them said:

“Well you know this is in the Bible don’t you...about the last days?”

What followed was a cacophony of "mm-hmms" and affirmations attesting to the truth 
of what the speaker had just said. The irony is every single one of them voted for 
Barack Obama and every Democrat directly preceding him.

Not long after, the subject of Fox News came up and they just as vehemently
denounced the station in favor of CNN and MSNBC! The incongruity lies in that they
agree with Glenn Beck but they never watch him and the stations they do watch are
openly hostile to what they believe at their very cores but they can’t see it.

They voted for the same guy that O’Donnell voted for. The same O’Donnell who openly
said on his show as aired by the MSNBC network, the Book they believe in is fiction
and the God they worship if they believe the Book of Revelation is a true testament of
what is to come, is a “ truly vicious God, a malicious torturer and mass murderer”.

Black folks don’t get it, despite the President’s profession of Christian faith, Christians
don’t “grapple” with issues God speaks plainly to. You either believe or you don’t! The
Holy Bible is a whole and you have to accept it wholly.

If you cannot accept the totality of God’s revelation, you are not a Christian; you are
something else entirely, and that’s okay! Be what you want, just don’t equivocate. You
cannot pick and chose the sayings of the Bible à la carte; you have to recognize, by
definition, Christians believe the Holy Bible is true. All of it!

Almost daily, I hear Black folks say, “We are in the last days!” --The last days as defined by the Holy Bible in books like Daniel, Jude and, yes, the Revelation of John, to name a few. Yet they vote for the same people who often ridicule what they believe, made manifest by President Obama’s statements lamenting the Pennsylvanians who find comfort in “clinging” to their religion.

Liberal Democrat candidates, championed by people who openly mock the Christian faith as a matter of course which was displayed by Lawrence O’Donnell’s rather tragic, nay, embarrassing appeal for more watchers. Where is the outrage professing Christians should feel towards MSNBC for employing a man who mocks the faith the overwhelming majority of Americans claim as their own.

Ask yourself what would be the repercussions if a Fox Host mocked the Qur’an and the god of Islam in like manner? The liberal left would be clamoring for the Fox Host to be pilloried for all to see at Rockefeller Plaza, his home razed to the ground, his fields salted and the hoary heads of his esteemed elders spitted upon pikes.

In Friday's conversation, I mentioned Star Parker, Herman Cain, Allen West and 
Thomas Sowell. They were all unknown to the ladies I was talking with. I said this is because you watch CNN and MSNBC--Neither station is big on Black pundits and
 politicians beyond Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. You almost never see conservative
 Blacks opining on any news organization other than Fox.

Fox News consistently has more Black pundits from both sides of the political aisle. The
 point is; the Black folks I talk to sound more like Fox commentators sustaining and 
voting for conservative ideas than the folks you see on the other networks who support and vote for Democrats. The opinions on the right certainly jibe more often with Black
 Christian beliefs, nonetheless we vote for the left.

My Bible says “A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.” This is certainly the case in the Black community! Our loyalty is divided between God and the world. That division is demonstrated in the way we vote and subsequently in our communities when we reject the precepts of God and elect fools of a singular, ungodly liberal perspective for decade-after-decade as our communities putrefy at an accelerated pace.

We all struggle with sin in our lives, but as Christians we are to aspire to live Godly lives and to be “salt and light” in a fallen world. No one knows what is in a man’s heart, if we vote for a politician who says one thing to get our vote, then does another thing once he has procured that vote, shame on the politician.

My question to fellow Black Christians: How is it you get behind leaders who openly support sin, and scorn the wisdom of the God of the Holy Bible?

“Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.” Proverbs 14:9:

Digital Publius

What Would Digital Publius Do?

I have the occasion to engage in apologetical discussions pertaining to the Christian faith with a wide variety of anti-Christian antagonists — Muslims, witches, atheists. As a Christian apologist, one argument you are sure to come up against, no matter the persuasion of the person you are dealing with, is the reliability of the Holy Bible.

They all claim one or all of the following, without fail, the Holy Bible:

1) is not divine in origin, but rather the work of men;

2) is open to a wide range of interpretations with no Biblical view able to claim preeminence above the next;

3) despite an individual’s belief in the Holy Bible’s divine or mundane source or sources, it has been tampered with by unscrupulous men bent on using the text to further their own ambitions; for this reason, the Bible matters little today.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on claim number three. This particular claim has always been the most amusing to me, as it is by far the silliest and easiest to overturn. Which brings us to the title of this article – “What Would Digital Publius Do?”

In keeping with the idea of man placing his own wisdom and morality above God's I am forced to ask the question, What would I do if I were an unscrupulous man bent on using the Biblical text to further my own ambitions? What would I change in the Holy Bible to help me meet that end? Well I sure as heck would do a better job than those who came before me!

If I were a powerful person capable of effecting changes to the Bible, given my natural predilection for attractive women, I’m fairly certain I would do away with the whole one man one woman thing and all those pesky rules eschewing adultery and fornication. Just being honest here!

I  would certainly make it possible for powerful men like myself to be exempt from such restrictions, if not the hoi poloi. There would have to be some revelation given so at least I could do my thing!

This is the sort of thing we do find in extra-Biblical cults and false religions. Generally when someone wants to use “religion” to grasp power, they have their own revelation or “thus sayeth the Lord” moment. They don’t change the Bible, they change the brand. That's how the world got the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the Qur'an to name a few!

The problem in changing the Holy Bible is people would notice, even way back in the 4th century, the time most Bible critics point to when they make these assertions. But if you start your own brand, you’re good. You just claim that God is still in the revelation business and you are the new relay!

Liberalism, by it’s very nature, abhors rules against the causes they want to champion. The leftists don’t like phrases like “Congress shall make no law...” any more than they like “Thou shalt not...” No man does really.

The difference is in an individuals heart and discipline to overcome our baser instincts and accept what God wants to teach man about how we should live and treat others. Let me give you an example of liberal thinking. Aldous Huxley, the Author of “Brave New World”, makes a rather revelatory statement when rationalizing his acceptance of the idea of Darwinian evolution and the meaninglessness of life as had his grandfather, Thomas Henry Huxley (who was known as Darwin’s bulldog):

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom..” Aldous Huxley, “Confession of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, vol. 3 (June 1966), p. 19. From an article by Helming, “An Interview with God.”

It’s simple really; rebellion against God can always be summed up as man’s intrinsic selfish pursuit of self-gratification and expedience.

The Holy Bible contemporaneously still looks down on the sort of behavior that would aid in oppressing others for selfish reasons. It has still got a bunch of those troublesome “Thou shalt not's” giving fits to Huxley and his like-minded latter day liberals and that humanists of every kind find so distasteful. In fact, the Bible has a distressing habit of teaching service to others as the only true path to greatness.

“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”  Luke 22:24-27

Yep, that’s the kind of passage from Jesus Christ that would have to go! Not good if you are all about selfish power grabs and controlling masses with liturgical opiates. Yet it is still there! How do you, as a king, put this teaching to work placing yourself above other men, even above God when Christ, Himself says, “I am here among you serving you”?

No, my friends, when man seeks to abrogate the Living Word of God, he does it from the outside, by casting aspersions on the Holy Bible and placing human wisdom above what was revealed to man in Scripture. You don’t change God’s Word, you reject it!

You conform God to your idea of what He should be outside of the framework of who God says He is in His written Word. People reject not just the Bible, but also the Holy God of the Holy Bible. There are scads of people, like President Obama who say they believe in God—yet you find precious few who actually believe God!

This is why President Obama can claim to be a Christian, yet the White House says the President is “grappling” with his personal views on gay marriage as Obama orders the United States Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the very law of the land defining marriage as a legal state consisting of one man and one woman in holy matrimony.

Is President Obama less powerful than the kings and leaders of old? Can’t the President do something about this outdated Bible our laws are based on? Well, the Democrats and the rest of the liberal left have been doing just that for decades now. The leftists have eliminated the Bible's influence in American society as much as they possibly can.

You don’t have to change the Holy Bible - just undermine it! God says He knew you in the womb, my President says that’s “above my pay grade”! God says marriage is defined as one man, one woman, my President says lets ‘grapple” with that idea!

Change the Bible? Why bother? Every time a King or President casts doubt on God’s wisdom by overturning the clear teachings of Scripture on matters of marriage and the like, does he have to literally take out a Sharpie and start redacting the Holy Bible? Of course not, especially when President Obama's own Democrat Party has put in the time and legislation to make sure that many don’t know what the Bible says to begin with — let alone feeling any accountability to the One who wrote it!

Digital Publius