We don't have Fox Business Channel here so we didn't see the Republican debate this week. Then the Democrat debate was late last night your time which was during church this morning here, so we missed it too. No worries. From the news clips it looks like Rubio and Cruz had great nights, and the Democrats were all losers.
No sooner had Obama declared that ISIS is contained than ISIS uncontained itself and spread out of the Middle East to attack Paris. In response in their debate all three Democrat candidates supported Obama's plan to allow 170,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. Do you think there is something lacking in their intellectual capacitors? Then Bernie Sanders made the most insane claim yet about global warming. It's the cause for the rise of ISIS he said. Ann Coulter thinks the events this week just gave the next presidency to Donald Trump. The question is whether or not we will survive long enough for there to be a next election. While Obama golfs the world has descended into chaos, and liberals still think he's the greatest president in history. There's no measurement for brain capacities that small.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Ben Carson Gets Fired Up
Well did you see where obama said the bottom line about obamacare is that the American people like it? He's living in an alternate universe where everything he says is truth, and the lame stream media worshipping at his feet confirm everything he says. In the real world 70% of Americans want it overturned.
Did you also see Ben Carson's interview yesterday? He wrote his autobiography and claimed to have been offered a "scholarship" to West Point. Since he didn't take it the media is doubting the credibility of his claim. Actually, "scholarship" is the wrong word. If you get chosen you get an appointment to the service academies and then the government pays your way. But Carson turned it down because he wanted to go into medicine. No big deal except the media is challenging the truth of the allegation.
Along with that Carson wrote that in his rebellious teenage years he once threatened a friend with a knife. The liberal media is all over it, checking up with all the childhood friends they can find and finding no evidence of the incident. While they are busy calling Carson a liar they are missing the real story. Carson was such a good kid that none of his neighbors ever knew of the incident. It appears that the three things he mentions are about the only three things he ever did wrong in his youth. Carson is just being real, showing that he's not perfect, and the media is calling him a liar for admitting he isn't.
The best part, however, came in the news conference when reporters kept challenging him on these little tidbits of facts. Carson came unglued and angrily challenged the news media for not investigating obama's false claims in his books when he was running for president. When they tried to change the subject Carson wouldn't let them and repeatedly asked them why they had never asked these questions of bho. That led to bringing up the validity of the birth certificate. Carson accused the media of being all over his claim of a "scholarship" and what his true college credentials are, but they've never yet asked why obama's college record is sealed.
Carson brought up everything the politically correct leftists and wimpy right wing compromisers are afraid to talk about and laid it at the feet of the liberal media. But what's more, he showed he can get angry and raise his voice and command a situation. This was a great weekend of Ben Carson and for America. Finally we have people not afraid to demand answers to questions that even Bill O'Reilly has been afraid to ask because of political correctness.
Did you also see Ben Carson's interview yesterday? He wrote his autobiography and claimed to have been offered a "scholarship" to West Point. Since he didn't take it the media is doubting the credibility of his claim. Actually, "scholarship" is the wrong word. If you get chosen you get an appointment to the service academies and then the government pays your way. But Carson turned it down because he wanted to go into medicine. No big deal except the media is challenging the truth of the allegation.
Along with that Carson wrote that in his rebellious teenage years he once threatened a friend with a knife. The liberal media is all over it, checking up with all the childhood friends they can find and finding no evidence of the incident. While they are busy calling Carson a liar they are missing the real story. Carson was such a good kid that none of his neighbors ever knew of the incident. It appears that the three things he mentions are about the only three things he ever did wrong in his youth. Carson is just being real, showing that he's not perfect, and the media is calling him a liar for admitting he isn't.
The best part, however, came in the news conference when reporters kept challenging him on these little tidbits of facts. Carson came unglued and angrily challenged the news media for not investigating obama's false claims in his books when he was running for president. When they tried to change the subject Carson wouldn't let them and repeatedly asked them why they had never asked these questions of bho. That led to bringing up the validity of the birth certificate. Carson accused the media of being all over his claim of a "scholarship" and what his true college credentials are, but they've never yet asked why obama's college record is sealed.
Carson brought up everything the politically correct leftists and wimpy right wing compromisers are afraid to talk about and laid it at the feet of the liberal media. But what's more, he showed he can get angry and raise his voice and command a situation. This was a great weekend of Ben Carson and for America. Finally we have people not afraid to demand answers to questions that even Bill O'Reilly has been afraid to ask because of political correctness.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
The Democrat Debate
The much anticipated Democrat debate aired at 8:30am here in the Philippines so I adjusted my schedule to stay home and watch it. I probably didn't need to waste my time, except that I was curious to see if there would be any attempt to take down Hillary. There wasn't. In fact, there wasn't anything really unexpected in the two-and-a-half hour socialist love fest. It was almost a race to see who could promise to give away more: free college tuition, paid maternity leave, and Obamacare for illegal immigrants. Coldly missing from all their promises was anything for veterans.
The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.
It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.
I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.
That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.
They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.
Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.
You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.
In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.
Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.
James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.
They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.
On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?
Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.
Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.
Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.
O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.
But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.
On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."
After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.
When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.
In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.
Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.
The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.
It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.
I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.
That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.
They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.
Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.
You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.
In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.
Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.
James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.
They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.
On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?
Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.
Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.
Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.
O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.
But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.
On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."
After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.
When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.
In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.
Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Cold War 2
I make no claim to being a prophet but I published a comment July 6, 2009 about Obama's sniveling to then Russian president Medvedev and said, "My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War." Here's the comment:
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Should a Muslim be President
What is overlooked in this debate on whether or not a Muslim should be president is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the only religion of any consequence in the country was Christianity. The Christian founders guaranteed freedom of religion to all religions, but they never expected to see a day when Islam or any other non-Christian religion would have been dominant. This is clear in their own writings and comments. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and author of five of The Federalist articles, said that it is the duty of Christians in a Christian nation to elect Christians to the nation's highest offices. The Founders, while granting freedom of worship to all religions, expected that America would be a Christian nation in perpetuity. The reason someone adhering to Sharia Law should not be president, even if the Constitution would allow it to happen, is that in Islam there can be no loyalty to any entity other than Allah. A Muslim president could not honestly take the oath of office because his only loyalty would be to Islam and an Islamic takeover and overthrow of the Constitution he would be swearing to defend.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Second Republican Debate
After the pitifully poor debates in 2012, the Republican debates this time have been refreshingly lively and constructive. And unbelievably, I think the CNN debate tonight was moderated better than the Fox News debate last month. The questions were rattled off quickly and the candidates were able to banter back and forth on the issues.
The down side was the moderators kept trying to engineer attacks between the candidates, usually involving Trump, but mostly the candidates didn't take the bait. There were some lively arguments between Trump and Carly Fiorina, Trump and Bush, Trump and Paul, and some spats between others, but when the debate stalled on Trump and Fiorina's wealth and business success, Chris Christie brought it back in order by saying the debate needed to concentrate on what they were going to do for the middle class and the economy.
Bush had a lot more energy and made a joke about himself and the energizer rabbit which was well received, and Marco Rubio was on fire about foreign policy. Fiorina and Scott Walker also tried to keep the debate on track by attacking Hillary and Obama, but the high point of the evening may have been when Fiorina made an impassioned to defund Planned Parenthood. It received a largest applause of the evening. Huckabee also spoke against Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz was once again solid, although I don't think his performance was as good as in the first debate. Kasich had the best argument for himself and the economy since he engineered the balanced budget during the Clinton administration. In the end all of them showed themselves to be worthy debaters with strong positions, and most of them probably helped themselves to some degree.
The winner was most likely Carly Fiorina who showed herself to be tough and focused. Her downside may have been that she was too stern, and when she stood up to Trump on his comment about her looks and he gave what would be the closest thing to a Trump apology that anyone could hope for, she refused to look at him or be magnanimous in the least. She looked angry most of the night. She probably also won the sympathy vote when the discussion came to drugs and she told of her son who had died of a drug overdose. Two others who really shined were Christie and Rubio.
The losers ironically I think were the two that are on top of the polls. Trump's self-confidence will probably still take him a long way but his brash, condescension towards other candidates is starting to wear thin. He keeps talking about putting together a plan, but we've yet to hear very much of it, and people are going to grow tired of that eventually. The same is true for Ben Carson in the opposite direction. Yes he's intelligent, and yes he's humble, and yes he's got the right position on about all the issues, but his soft spoken manner is also getting tiring, and I think people are going to want him to speak up and get a little more animated or he isn't going to go far. Rand Paul did better than the last debate but I don't think he made many points.
Scott Walker, although he had good presence and solid answers, and won a dust up with Trump when he said we don't need another apprentice in the White House, was given the least amount of time to talk which couldn't have helped him, although that wouldn't be his fault. It makes you wonder if he's the one the left fears the most.
The down side was the moderators kept trying to engineer attacks between the candidates, usually involving Trump, but mostly the candidates didn't take the bait. There were some lively arguments between Trump and Carly Fiorina, Trump and Bush, Trump and Paul, and some spats between others, but when the debate stalled on Trump and Fiorina's wealth and business success, Chris Christie brought it back in order by saying the debate needed to concentrate on what they were going to do for the middle class and the economy.
Bush had a lot more energy and made a joke about himself and the energizer rabbit which was well received, and Marco Rubio was on fire about foreign policy. Fiorina and Scott Walker also tried to keep the debate on track by attacking Hillary and Obama, but the high point of the evening may have been when Fiorina made an impassioned to defund Planned Parenthood. It received a largest applause of the evening. Huckabee also spoke against Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz was once again solid, although I don't think his performance was as good as in the first debate. Kasich had the best argument for himself and the economy since he engineered the balanced budget during the Clinton administration. In the end all of them showed themselves to be worthy debaters with strong positions, and most of them probably helped themselves to some degree.
The winner was most likely Carly Fiorina who showed herself to be tough and focused. Her downside may have been that she was too stern, and when she stood up to Trump on his comment about her looks and he gave what would be the closest thing to a Trump apology that anyone could hope for, she refused to look at him or be magnanimous in the least. She looked angry most of the night. She probably also won the sympathy vote when the discussion came to drugs and she told of her son who had died of a drug overdose. Two others who really shined were Christie and Rubio.
The losers ironically I think were the two that are on top of the polls. Trump's self-confidence will probably still take him a long way but his brash, condescension towards other candidates is starting to wear thin. He keeps talking about putting together a plan, but we've yet to hear very much of it, and people are going to grow tired of that eventually. The same is true for Ben Carson in the opposite direction. Yes he's intelligent, and yes he's humble, and yes he's got the right position on about all the issues, but his soft spoken manner is also getting tiring, and I think people are going to want him to speak up and get a little more animated or he isn't going to go far. Rand Paul did better than the last debate but I don't think he made many points.
Scott Walker, although he had good presence and solid answers, and won a dust up with Trump when he said we don't need another apprentice in the White House, was given the least amount of time to talk which couldn't have helped him, although that wouldn't be his fault. It makes you wonder if he's the one the left fears the most.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Planned Parenthood
When I was in the Navy they held a fund raiser every year called the Combined Federal Campaign. Raffle tickets were sold to both enlisted and officers for a number of prizes including TVs, stereos, washing machines, and occasionally a car if you were at a large enough base with a lot of people on board. The officers bought the majority of the tickets to finance the program but the enlisted troops won all the prizes. We all suspected it was rigged because every year one officer would win a coffee pot while all the valuable prizes went to the troops. We didn't mind, it was designed to help them.
Along with the drawing in 1990 a list of hundreds of charitable organizations was handed out that we could choose from if we wished to support any of them by having an amount garnished direct from our paychecks every month. The list had information about the organizations including how much in charitable contributions they received on average annually, and how much of their receipts went to administration and salaries, and how much went to actual charity. When I came across Planned Parenthood I was struck by the fact that 49% of their contributions went to salaries and administration. I was sitting in the Ready Room at our squadron going over the list when I decided to support National Right to Life. Only 13% of their contributions went to salaries and administration, and it was a cause I am strongly in favor of. As I filled out the form somebody asked me what I had chosen and the debate was on.
In my years in the military I found that the vast majority of servicemen and women were generally conservative and voted Republican. Ronald Reagan was very popular. But the conservatism of most of them ended at economics, foreign policy, patriotism and American exceptionalism. Most had a very New Age view of morality, and while they might be respectful of religion (many attended chapel services), they had no biblical conviction on morals. Relative truth ruled the day, and when it came to abortion, most favored "a woman's right to choose."
Any discussion on the right to life would of course include abortion, and the debate that day migrated to Planned Parenthood. I knew about Planned Parenthood. Even in 1990 it was a major abortion provider under the deceitful guise of being a family planning organization. While everybody else defended it for non-existent mammograms and other things, one pilot in particular denied that Planned Parenthood did abortions and smirked and laughed at me for suggesting it did. (I wonder what he thinks now that it has been proven Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the entire country.) I blew my stack and got so animated I was waving my arms at him while I let him know how uninformed he was. A couple of the other pilots jumped in and asked me what I was so excited about. "Because," I said, "he's wrong, he got my goat, and I'm not reacting well. I'm sorry."
I never had the discussion with that particular pilot again, but everybody knew where I stood on abortion. I was almost alone in my conviction in the squadron. I never lost my cool again, but the subject always makes me angry. I've heard all the arguments. In the eighties people were still sanctimoniously saying, "How do you know when life begins?" That's the most asinine of all abortion questions. The Bible is clear life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5). That being rejected, however, the physical argument still proves it. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and the zygote is formed the first thing it immediately does is duplicate. Then it does it again. In seconds the one cell has become two, then four, then eight, then sixteen. It is growing. Only live things grow. Dead things don't grow. Viability is not the issue. The baby is a living human being from conception.
The whole case on abortion rests on the inconvenience the baby may be to the mother and/or the father. They don't want to be bothered. In most cases the babies being aborted belong to unwed mothers. For many it may be a hard choice to make. It is understandable. For others there is no question. For Planned Parenthood it is a money making opportunity and that's all they care about.
We live in a culture where people are so oversexed that they want to be free to live out whatever sexual desires they have without facing any responsibility for their actions. If you disagree with this decadent lifestyle you're often called hateful and a prude. The defense for this licentious living is always to ask about exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Surely you can't be so uncompassionate that you can't make room for those exceptions they argue.
Okay, let's consider a couple of cases. In one, the mother is over forty, the father has syphilis, and three older children are already sickly and mentally unstable. The so-called compassionate argument is to let her have the abortion. Why take a risk on another sick child whose life would be miserable, not to mention the burden on the parents? If you agree to an abortion, you just killed Beethoven.
Let's try another. The mother is forty-four. The placenta has attached low in the birth canal and has torn loose. When it tore the mother hemorrhaged and was in the hospital for a month. The baby was barely hanging on. Now the mother has to be on bed-rest for the entire pregnancy which includes two more bleeding spells and trips to the hospital. To further complicate her misery the mother has a sciatic nerve problem and is in constant pain which only grows as the baby grows. In the seventh month she's in so much pain she's afraid she won't survive another six weeks to give birth. Surely the caring thing to do is end her suffering. After all, one doctor has already told her the baby couldn't survive and recommended ending the pregnancy. If you agree with this doctor to an abortion you just killed my son!
Today my son, Ethan, is seven years old, at the top of his second grade class in an advanced curriculum Montessori school, he speaks two languages fluently, plays the piano and is learning to play the guitar. Rather than being a burden, he is a blessing to my wife and I as we get older.
Another story similar to ours is Tim Tebow, the football player. Figure it out. How many Beethovens and Tebows, how many artists, athletes, doctors, writers, educators, scientists, inventors, astronauts, builders, you name it, and how many precious little children like Ethan have never had a chance to live, to dream, to accomplish, to be a blessing because of abortion? How many potential discoveries and advancements will never be made or will be delayed indefinitely because of the lives slaughtered in these greedy, money-driven, mad abortuaries?
Even if we allow for the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions, the truth is if these conditions were strictly followed there would only be a handful of abortions on any given day. The fact is there are over 3,500 abortions performed daily, 1.1 million annually, and well over 99.9% of these are elective abortions that have nothing to do with any of the exceptions. Over 57 million babies have been murdered by abortion since 1973. That's about the number of people who died worldwide in World War Two. This is a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
Now a series of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress has emerged revealing the truth about Planned Parenthood. Starting with Planned Parenthood executives talking candidly about baby parts while eating salads, and laughing about making enough money to buy Lamborghinis, they have progressed to more serious talk of how they salvage baby parts intact, and just when you think it couldn't get any more hideous the most recent videos expose them talking about cutting the faces of babies open to remove the brain intact while the heart of the aborted child which has survived the procedure is still beating. Can it get anymore reprehensible than that? It's plain murder.
Any decent person would cringe at the thought, but not only do these Planned Parenthood abortionists not cringe, they have no compassion, they are heartless, cold, calculating and cruel. They have ice in their veins. They are godless. And what's worse, they don't care. They talk about harvesting body parts like it's picking snow peas from the garden. It's all money to them. They don't care that they are brazenly breaking the law in harvesting and selling body parts. They laugh at it. These are the most vile, heinous, wicked people in the world. The sanctity of life means nothing to them. The odious terrorists of ISIS are no more loathsome than these people. A pox on Cecile Richards, a pox on the entire Democrat Party for supporting Planned Parenthood, and a pox on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who can't find the time to bring the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The Heritage Foundation invited 2,000 Democrat staffers in Washington to watch a screening of the nine videos exposing Planned Parenthood. Four showed up and watched them all the way through. That's the Democrat Party. Mitch McConnell belongs in that group. They don't want to be faced with the truth because what they are doing is open rebellion against God, morality, and everything decent. Abortion is the shedding of the innocent blood of babies on the altar of paganism in worship of the devil himself. It's the theology of atheistic humanism which is the religion of God-booing leftists.
Don't be swayed when you hear someone who doesn't even believe the Bible say Jesus would have compassion on struggling mothers and approve of what they are doing, or "judge not that ye be not judged." These people have judged the life of innocent babies not to be worthy and are murdering them by the thousands every day. They don't know God. The fact is, Jesus, quite contrary to the leftist brand of compassion, has already judged them. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus said:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Do you not think that if Jesus cares this much about children, He cares just the same about babies in the womb? The wrath of God's judgment is hanging over the United States of America like Damocles sword. As a nation we have become so wicked that I wonder if that sword will remain suspended until the next election? Is there a chance God might still have mercy on our nation after this 57 million baby holocaust? Perhaps, if we will put a stop to this abominable practice of abortion. A good place to start would be the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and then closing it down altogether.
I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, and that His justice will not sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson
Along with the drawing in 1990 a list of hundreds of charitable organizations was handed out that we could choose from if we wished to support any of them by having an amount garnished direct from our paychecks every month. The list had information about the organizations including how much in charitable contributions they received on average annually, and how much of their receipts went to administration and salaries, and how much went to actual charity. When I came across Planned Parenthood I was struck by the fact that 49% of their contributions went to salaries and administration. I was sitting in the Ready Room at our squadron going over the list when I decided to support National Right to Life. Only 13% of their contributions went to salaries and administration, and it was a cause I am strongly in favor of. As I filled out the form somebody asked me what I had chosen and the debate was on.
In my years in the military I found that the vast majority of servicemen and women were generally conservative and voted Republican. Ronald Reagan was very popular. But the conservatism of most of them ended at economics, foreign policy, patriotism and American exceptionalism. Most had a very New Age view of morality, and while they might be respectful of religion (many attended chapel services), they had no biblical conviction on morals. Relative truth ruled the day, and when it came to abortion, most favored "a woman's right to choose."
Any discussion on the right to life would of course include abortion, and the debate that day migrated to Planned Parenthood. I knew about Planned Parenthood. Even in 1990 it was a major abortion provider under the deceitful guise of being a family planning organization. While everybody else defended it for non-existent mammograms and other things, one pilot in particular denied that Planned Parenthood did abortions and smirked and laughed at me for suggesting it did. (I wonder what he thinks now that it has been proven Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the entire country.) I blew my stack and got so animated I was waving my arms at him while I let him know how uninformed he was. A couple of the other pilots jumped in and asked me what I was so excited about. "Because," I said, "he's wrong, he got my goat, and I'm not reacting well. I'm sorry."
I never had the discussion with that particular pilot again, but everybody knew where I stood on abortion. I was almost alone in my conviction in the squadron. I never lost my cool again, but the subject always makes me angry. I've heard all the arguments. In the eighties people were still sanctimoniously saying, "How do you know when life begins?" That's the most asinine of all abortion questions. The Bible is clear life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5). That being rejected, however, the physical argument still proves it. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and the zygote is formed the first thing it immediately does is duplicate. Then it does it again. In seconds the one cell has become two, then four, then eight, then sixteen. It is growing. Only live things grow. Dead things don't grow. Viability is not the issue. The baby is a living human being from conception.
The whole case on abortion rests on the inconvenience the baby may be to the mother and/or the father. They don't want to be bothered. In most cases the babies being aborted belong to unwed mothers. For many it may be a hard choice to make. It is understandable. For others there is no question. For Planned Parenthood it is a money making opportunity and that's all they care about.
We live in a culture where people are so oversexed that they want to be free to live out whatever sexual desires they have without facing any responsibility for their actions. If you disagree with this decadent lifestyle you're often called hateful and a prude. The defense for this licentious living is always to ask about exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Surely you can't be so uncompassionate that you can't make room for those exceptions they argue.
Okay, let's consider a couple of cases. In one, the mother is over forty, the father has syphilis, and three older children are already sickly and mentally unstable. The so-called compassionate argument is to let her have the abortion. Why take a risk on another sick child whose life would be miserable, not to mention the burden on the parents? If you agree to an abortion, you just killed Beethoven.
Let's try another. The mother is forty-four. The placenta has attached low in the birth canal and has torn loose. When it tore the mother hemorrhaged and was in the hospital for a month. The baby was barely hanging on. Now the mother has to be on bed-rest for the entire pregnancy which includes two more bleeding spells and trips to the hospital. To further complicate her misery the mother has a sciatic nerve problem and is in constant pain which only grows as the baby grows. In the seventh month she's in so much pain she's afraid she won't survive another six weeks to give birth. Surely the caring thing to do is end her suffering. After all, one doctor has already told her the baby couldn't survive and recommended ending the pregnancy. If you agree with this doctor to an abortion you just killed my son!
Today my son, Ethan, is seven years old, at the top of his second grade class in an advanced curriculum Montessori school, he speaks two languages fluently, plays the piano and is learning to play the guitar. Rather than being a burden, he is a blessing to my wife and I as we get older.
Another story similar to ours is Tim Tebow, the football player. Figure it out. How many Beethovens and Tebows, how many artists, athletes, doctors, writers, educators, scientists, inventors, astronauts, builders, you name it, and how many precious little children like Ethan have never had a chance to live, to dream, to accomplish, to be a blessing because of abortion? How many potential discoveries and advancements will never be made or will be delayed indefinitely because of the lives slaughtered in these greedy, money-driven, mad abortuaries?
Even if we allow for the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions, the truth is if these conditions were strictly followed there would only be a handful of abortions on any given day. The fact is there are over 3,500 abortions performed daily, 1.1 million annually, and well over 99.9% of these are elective abortions that have nothing to do with any of the exceptions. Over 57 million babies have been murdered by abortion since 1973. That's about the number of people who died worldwide in World War Two. This is a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
Now a series of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress has emerged revealing the truth about Planned Parenthood. Starting with Planned Parenthood executives talking candidly about baby parts while eating salads, and laughing about making enough money to buy Lamborghinis, they have progressed to more serious talk of how they salvage baby parts intact, and just when you think it couldn't get any more hideous the most recent videos expose them talking about cutting the faces of babies open to remove the brain intact while the heart of the aborted child which has survived the procedure is still beating. Can it get anymore reprehensible than that? It's plain murder.
Any decent person would cringe at the thought, but not only do these Planned Parenthood abortionists not cringe, they have no compassion, they are heartless, cold, calculating and cruel. They have ice in their veins. They are godless. And what's worse, they don't care. They talk about harvesting body parts like it's picking snow peas from the garden. It's all money to them. They don't care that they are brazenly breaking the law in harvesting and selling body parts. They laugh at it. These are the most vile, heinous, wicked people in the world. The sanctity of life means nothing to them. The odious terrorists of ISIS are no more loathsome than these people. A pox on Cecile Richards, a pox on the entire Democrat Party for supporting Planned Parenthood, and a pox on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who can't find the time to bring the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The Heritage Foundation invited 2,000 Democrat staffers in Washington to watch a screening of the nine videos exposing Planned Parenthood. Four showed up and watched them all the way through. That's the Democrat Party. Mitch McConnell belongs in that group. They don't want to be faced with the truth because what they are doing is open rebellion against God, morality, and everything decent. Abortion is the shedding of the innocent blood of babies on the altar of paganism in worship of the devil himself. It's the theology of atheistic humanism which is the religion of God-booing leftists.
Don't be swayed when you hear someone who doesn't even believe the Bible say Jesus would have compassion on struggling mothers and approve of what they are doing, or "judge not that ye be not judged." These people have judged the life of innocent babies not to be worthy and are murdering them by the thousands every day. They don't know God. The fact is, Jesus, quite contrary to the leftist brand of compassion, has already judged them. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus said:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Do you not think that if Jesus cares this much about children, He cares just the same about babies in the womb? The wrath of God's judgment is hanging over the United States of America like Damocles sword. As a nation we have become so wicked that I wonder if that sword will remain suspended until the next election? Is there a chance God might still have mercy on our nation after this 57 million baby holocaust? Perhaps, if we will put a stop to this abominable practice of abortion. A good place to start would be the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and then closing it down altogether.
I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, and that His justice will not sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, August 27, 2015
The Trump Card
Donald Trump has been in the spotlight for several decades, not only as a financial wizard and real estate mogul, but also for his much publicized divorce from his Czech wife, Ivana, in 1992. They were both outspoken and obnoxious, they both survived. I remember thinking when one of his casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, filed for bankruptcy that this vain, brash, self-absorbed business giant was about to be taken down.
But Trump didn't go down. It turns out he has a lot more business acumen than most people realize and he has used it to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Using bankruptcy laws to help stretch out his loan payments, or for whatever reason it was, helped him to restructure and come out stronger than before and he eventually paid all his debts. He certainly knows how to use the system.
When he talked about running for president in 2012 I thought please don't. He would be a side show and if he wound up splitting the Republican vote he would throw the election to Obama. After all he was just a RINO himself, pro-abortion, and dividing his votes and support between Republican and Democrat candidates alike. As it turned out it didn't matter. Mitt Romney ran such an inept campaign that he gave the election, which any competent candidate would have won, away to Obama.
When Trump announced this time I thought it was going to be a joke. His announcement speech was not polished. He sounded like a blow hard with no substance, who would stir things up and then go away. But he didn't go away.
In fact, he struck a chord with people who are tired of politically correct politicians with no guts, who surrender on issues every time the political correct police start criticizing and calling names. He called out the so-called conservatives who slaughtered the Democrats in the last congressional elections by promising to stand up to Obama and overturn obamacare, who have bowed the knee to the White House and done nothing. All of a sudden Trump was outpolling all the Republican candidates and even though his first debate performance was not stellar he is still leading the field. Not only is his candidacy not a joke, it's for real, and interestingly enough he's drawing the majority of his support from grass roots conservatives. He's wooing the base of the Republican Party, the Christians and the right wing, people who in the past would probably have been appalled by Trump's personal life and history.
But now it turns out Trump is not pro-abortion. The media gave him that tag and it stuck, but he claims to be pro-life and always has been. In Dubuque, Iowa, he said that the Bible is the best book in the world. Whether he has actually read it or not is a question because he has said he never asks God for help. One has to wonder if his sudden appreciation for the Bible is just a typical leftist style comment designed to try and fool the religious right the way Clinton or Obama would do. But actually Trump has been the most outspoken in defense of the First Amendment and against the increasing persecution of Christians in America.
Economics rules the world and Trump obviously knows economics, finance, and business better than the lawyer class of politicians and bureaucrats who run Washington, D.C. He knows how to grow the economy and bring jobs back to America and has a plan to do it. He has a common sense approach to world affairs. He wants to secure the border with Mexico, rebuild our military to a position of strength and respect on the world stage, and he wants to undo the idiotic, lunatic nuclear deal with Iran. He wants to win in the Middle East and he has a plan to use Middle Eastern oil to finance the victory. You don't hear anybody talking that tough about anything, not even the best of the Republican candidates.
Although he is not as smooth as Reagan, Trump is very Reaganesque in his positions and his approach. He's bold, confident, and not afraid to tell the truth about anything. He hears what middle class America is saying and is speaking to it. His style may be brazen at times, but he's connecting with people who are fed up with the childish, petty antics of political correctness, and do nothing establishment Congresses stuck in the muck of Washington politics and completely out of touch with most of America.
Critics say he is all over the place on issues with no plan and no experience in foreign affairs. They say he'll make the world a more dangerous place. You mean like more dangerous than it is now after seven years of a community organizer with no experience at anything?
The critics called Reagan a "cowboy," complained that he had no experience in foreign affairs and warned that he would start World War 3. Instead, Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. The same critics vilified Sarah Palin for not having the necessary experience even though she was the governor of Alaska, but they didn't bat an eye at Obama's non-record. BHO has surrendered the free world to Islamic terrorism by not taking a stand on any issue. The panty-waste milksop negotiation approach obviously isn't working. What we need is another cowboy in charge.
Personally my first choice in the coming election is Ted Cruz. He and Trump are on the same page or close on many issues. He has a much softer manner than Trump, but he is just as firm in his positions, and he is for the Fair Tax, which I prefer over Trump's Flat Tax plan. He's also a born again Christian, unafraid to publicly share his testimony, and most likely reads the Bible often. And honestly, any return of America to conservative ideals, such as what happened under Reagan, will be short-lived (as it was under Bush 1, which led to Clinton, which then led to Bush 2 and Obama) if there is not a spiritual revival to bring America back from the immoral abyss we are beginning to fall into.
I think, however, that this next election is so critical to our nation's survival that maybe what we need is an arrogant, boastful, big mouth who believes in American exceptionalism, is not afraid to preach it, who will govern by the rule of law in the Constitution, and has the spine and the chutzpah in foreign policy to put the world in its place while he rebuilds America to number one. One thing is for sure, nobody since Ronald Reagan has shaken up the American political scene like Donald Trump.
But Trump didn't go down. It turns out he has a lot more business acumen than most people realize and he has used it to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Using bankruptcy laws to help stretch out his loan payments, or for whatever reason it was, helped him to restructure and come out stronger than before and he eventually paid all his debts. He certainly knows how to use the system.
When he talked about running for president in 2012 I thought please don't. He would be a side show and if he wound up splitting the Republican vote he would throw the election to Obama. After all he was just a RINO himself, pro-abortion, and dividing his votes and support between Republican and Democrat candidates alike. As it turned out it didn't matter. Mitt Romney ran such an inept campaign that he gave the election, which any competent candidate would have won, away to Obama.
When Trump announced this time I thought it was going to be a joke. His announcement speech was not polished. He sounded like a blow hard with no substance, who would stir things up and then go away. But he didn't go away.
In fact, he struck a chord with people who are tired of politically correct politicians with no guts, who surrender on issues every time the political correct police start criticizing and calling names. He called out the so-called conservatives who slaughtered the Democrats in the last congressional elections by promising to stand up to Obama and overturn obamacare, who have bowed the knee to the White House and done nothing. All of a sudden Trump was outpolling all the Republican candidates and even though his first debate performance was not stellar he is still leading the field. Not only is his candidacy not a joke, it's for real, and interestingly enough he's drawing the majority of his support from grass roots conservatives. He's wooing the base of the Republican Party, the Christians and the right wing, people who in the past would probably have been appalled by Trump's personal life and history.
But now it turns out Trump is not pro-abortion. The media gave him that tag and it stuck, but he claims to be pro-life and always has been. In Dubuque, Iowa, he said that the Bible is the best book in the world. Whether he has actually read it or not is a question because he has said he never asks God for help. One has to wonder if his sudden appreciation for the Bible is just a typical leftist style comment designed to try and fool the religious right the way Clinton or Obama would do. But actually Trump has been the most outspoken in defense of the First Amendment and against the increasing persecution of Christians in America.
Economics rules the world and Trump obviously knows economics, finance, and business better than the lawyer class of politicians and bureaucrats who run Washington, D.C. He knows how to grow the economy and bring jobs back to America and has a plan to do it. He has a common sense approach to world affairs. He wants to secure the border with Mexico, rebuild our military to a position of strength and respect on the world stage, and he wants to undo the idiotic, lunatic nuclear deal with Iran. He wants to win in the Middle East and he has a plan to use Middle Eastern oil to finance the victory. You don't hear anybody talking that tough about anything, not even the best of the Republican candidates.
Although he is not as smooth as Reagan, Trump is very Reaganesque in his positions and his approach. He's bold, confident, and not afraid to tell the truth about anything. He hears what middle class America is saying and is speaking to it. His style may be brazen at times, but he's connecting with people who are fed up with the childish, petty antics of political correctness, and do nothing establishment Congresses stuck in the muck of Washington politics and completely out of touch with most of America.
Critics say he is all over the place on issues with no plan and no experience in foreign affairs. They say he'll make the world a more dangerous place. You mean like more dangerous than it is now after seven years of a community organizer with no experience at anything?
The critics called Reagan a "cowboy," complained that he had no experience in foreign affairs and warned that he would start World War 3. Instead, Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. The same critics vilified Sarah Palin for not having the necessary experience even though she was the governor of Alaska, but they didn't bat an eye at Obama's non-record. BHO has surrendered the free world to Islamic terrorism by not taking a stand on any issue. The panty-waste milksop negotiation approach obviously isn't working. What we need is another cowboy in charge.
Personally my first choice in the coming election is Ted Cruz. He and Trump are on the same page or close on many issues. He has a much softer manner than Trump, but he is just as firm in his positions, and he is for the Fair Tax, which I prefer over Trump's Flat Tax plan. He's also a born again Christian, unafraid to publicly share his testimony, and most likely reads the Bible often. And honestly, any return of America to conservative ideals, such as what happened under Reagan, will be short-lived (as it was under Bush 1, which led to Clinton, which then led to Bush 2 and Obama) if there is not a spiritual revival to bring America back from the immoral abyss we are beginning to fall into.
I think, however, that this next election is so critical to our nation's survival that maybe what we need is an arrogant, boastful, big mouth who believes in American exceptionalism, is not afraid to preach it, who will govern by the rule of law in the Constitution, and has the spine and the chutzpah in foreign policy to put the world in its place while he rebuilds America to number one. One thing is for sure, nobody since Ronald Reagan has shaken up the American political scene like Donald Trump.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Tomfoolery, Craziness, and Cruel
Obama went to Kenya and even though he was warned ahead of time by the Kenyan government not to lecture them about homosexuality, he lectured them about homosexuality. Essentially he told them they needed to change their culture. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta then essentially told Obama to shut up. Gay rights are not a part of Kenyan culture and they are not about to change. (Polygamy and immorality are, but not homosexuality.)
Back in America at a Young African Leaders Initiative Presidential Summit in Washington, D.C. a reporter asked Obama about the African practice of killing people with albinism and harvesting body parts for ritual reasons. "My request to you is to raise this issue with the heads of states from African countries to bring these atrocities to an end, for the benefit of for us in this room, and our brothers and sisters back in Africa."
Obama replied, "That's tomfoolery. That's craziness. It's cruel." He encouraged the audience to resist such a practice because any tradition whether in the United States, Africa, or anywhere that treats people differently because of fear, ignorance, or because you feel superior is a bad tradition.
You mean like abortion?
The next day the next in a series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for the cold-hearted, money-making abortion slaughter house industry that it is was released showing a discussion with a Planned Parenthood doctor about saving the baby intact to harvest all of its parts. Obama's response? He defended Planned Parenthood. The illegal sale of harvested body parts caused the Justice Department to open an investigation ... not of Planned Parenthood, but of the people making the videos.
The head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said the videos show a "lack of compassion" ... by the makers of the videos, of course! The callousness of the doctors eating salad and laughing about buying Lamborghinis while discussing crushing babies in a way to keep salvageable body parts intact is so intensely vile that it turns any decent person's stomach. Lack of compassion? What about the child they are ripping apart and dissecting for financial gain? These people don't even know the meaning of the word. Not only do they lack compassion, they have no conscience.
Then Harry "the rat" Reid came out with the most moronic assertion of all. The Republican Party, he said, because they want to defund Planned Parenthood, "has lost its moral compass." Who is he to measure morality? The Left has no moral compass at all and hasn't had for a long time. We've heard it from Bill Clinton and we hear it constantly from Obama about our values and who we are. Values to the them means a lack of any guiding moral principle in life. Their values are perversion, hedonism, and a warped self-serving immorality that includes not only homosexual marriage but the ghastly, calculated murder of unborn infants, and by this latest video, possibly even live babies. When they talk about who we are, this is what they are talking about.
There aren't decent enough words to describe how decadent and sybaritic America has become. This is what you might expect in a barbarian, uncivilized, primitive culture hidden away somewhere in a jungle, and we've brought it home to roost on our civilized paved roads and air-conditioned buildings in our alabaster cities. The anti-God left and its media worshippers praise Richards for defending a "woman's right to choose." They call the most hideous assault on the most helpless of all people an act of courage and compassion. They call the most odious evil in the world good and then praise themselves for doing it.
Then empty-headed fools take to the streets to protest and call for the hanging of a hunter because he killed a lion in Africa that somebody had given a name. They complain about a flag because to them it represents a culture of hate and now all of a sudden it offends them, even though they've never been offended before. These same people have never shed one tear for 57 million aborted babies. Instead they equate Conservatives who are trying to protect life, one of the core principles of the Declaration of Independence, with Hitler and the Nazi party. You know, the ones who murdered six million Jews in the holocaust. Figure it out; America's abortuaries have slaughtered ten times as many babies as Hitler killed Jews. They have taken as many lives as were lost in all of World War 2.
Where will this put America at the bar of history? How are we as a nation going to answer to God for this wickedness? The Bible says that the blood of martyrs cries out to God for vengeance (Revelation 6:10). How much more do you think the innocent blood of babies destroyed in hideous, torturous abortions cries out? These are people. They are living human beings. Viability is not the issue. Babies in the womb are living, growing human beings. They are alive from conception. Science and technology have proven it true. There is no more argument about when life begins. The question for those who vote Democrat is how are you going to justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate and platform when you stand before God?
If we don't put a stop to this America will end up in the dustbin of history along with the USSR. How ironic after all that Vladimir Putin should call America godless and lecture Obama about persecuting Christians. This is the hope and change Obama has given us. It's tomfoolery. It's craziness. It's cruel. It will destroy us unless we change our culture back to our godly, Christian roots, and end homosexual marriage and abortion.
Back in America at a Young African Leaders Initiative Presidential Summit in Washington, D.C. a reporter asked Obama about the African practice of killing people with albinism and harvesting body parts for ritual reasons. "My request to you is to raise this issue with the heads of states from African countries to bring these atrocities to an end, for the benefit of for us in this room, and our brothers and sisters back in Africa."
Obama replied, "That's tomfoolery. That's craziness. It's cruel." He encouraged the audience to resist such a practice because any tradition whether in the United States, Africa, or anywhere that treats people differently because of fear, ignorance, or because you feel superior is a bad tradition.
You mean like abortion?
The next day the next in a series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for the cold-hearted, money-making abortion slaughter house industry that it is was released showing a discussion with a Planned Parenthood doctor about saving the baby intact to harvest all of its parts. Obama's response? He defended Planned Parenthood. The illegal sale of harvested body parts caused the Justice Department to open an investigation ... not of Planned Parenthood, but of the people making the videos.
The head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said the videos show a "lack of compassion" ... by the makers of the videos, of course! The callousness of the doctors eating salad and laughing about buying Lamborghinis while discussing crushing babies in a way to keep salvageable body parts intact is so intensely vile that it turns any decent person's stomach. Lack of compassion? What about the child they are ripping apart and dissecting for financial gain? These people don't even know the meaning of the word. Not only do they lack compassion, they have no conscience.
Then Harry "the rat" Reid came out with the most moronic assertion of all. The Republican Party, he said, because they want to defund Planned Parenthood, "has lost its moral compass." Who is he to measure morality? The Left has no moral compass at all and hasn't had for a long time. We've heard it from Bill Clinton and we hear it constantly from Obama about our values and who we are. Values to the them means a lack of any guiding moral principle in life. Their values are perversion, hedonism, and a warped self-serving immorality that includes not only homosexual marriage but the ghastly, calculated murder of unborn infants, and by this latest video, possibly even live babies. When they talk about who we are, this is what they are talking about.
There aren't decent enough words to describe how decadent and sybaritic America has become. This is what you might expect in a barbarian, uncivilized, primitive culture hidden away somewhere in a jungle, and we've brought it home to roost on our civilized paved roads and air-conditioned buildings in our alabaster cities. The anti-God left and its media worshippers praise Richards for defending a "woman's right to choose." They call the most hideous assault on the most helpless of all people an act of courage and compassion. They call the most odious evil in the world good and then praise themselves for doing it.
Then empty-headed fools take to the streets to protest and call for the hanging of a hunter because he killed a lion in Africa that somebody had given a name. They complain about a flag because to them it represents a culture of hate and now all of a sudden it offends them, even though they've never been offended before. These same people have never shed one tear for 57 million aborted babies. Instead they equate Conservatives who are trying to protect life, one of the core principles of the Declaration of Independence, with Hitler and the Nazi party. You know, the ones who murdered six million Jews in the holocaust. Figure it out; America's abortuaries have slaughtered ten times as many babies as Hitler killed Jews. They have taken as many lives as were lost in all of World War 2.
Where will this put America at the bar of history? How are we as a nation going to answer to God for this wickedness? The Bible says that the blood of martyrs cries out to God for vengeance (Revelation 6:10). How much more do you think the innocent blood of babies destroyed in hideous, torturous abortions cries out? These are people. They are living human beings. Viability is not the issue. Babies in the womb are living, growing human beings. They are alive from conception. Science and technology have proven it true. There is no more argument about when life begins. The question for those who vote Democrat is how are you going to justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate and platform when you stand before God?
If we don't put a stop to this America will end up in the dustbin of history along with the USSR. How ironic after all that Vladimir Putin should call America godless and lecture Obama about persecuting Christians. This is the hope and change Obama has given us. It's tomfoolery. It's craziness. It's cruel. It will destroy us unless we change our culture back to our godly, Christian roots, and end homosexual marriage and abortion.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Signs of the Times: Dispensationalism
Text: Ephesians 1:3-12; 3:1-6
Introduction: During the Cold War the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the international belief that said that as long as there is parity in nuclear weapons and missiles the world would be safe from a nuclear war because everybody would be afraid to use them. It set off an arms race that had people in so much fear that we actually had “duck and cover” drills in public schools. It also set off a plethora of cheap sci-fi movies in the 1950s with World War 3 scenarios where the last surviving humans are trying to escape the radiation that has turned other people into monsters.
The most serious and realistic of these was a 1959 film called On the Beach that starred Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. The plot in this story had the entire northern hemisphere destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, and the only survivors on earth were in Australia waiting for the radiation to blow their way. It was a serious consideration of what the world might have been like, and there were no monsters.
I saw the movie on television when I was about eight or nine years old. We saw it at my dad’s place. I asked my dad’s wife if it was true about the nuclear weapons. Oh, yes, she assured me. There are weapons that could destroy the whole world right now. I went to bed in fear for several nights after that thinking the world could be destroyed at any minute, until I asked my mother about it and she gave me a better explanation.
A lot of people think a nuclear war such as this would be Armageddon. In 2003 as the US was preparing to invade Iraq critics were warning that it could bring about Armageddon. This all comes from a misunderstanding that Armageddon might be a World War 3 nuclear holocaust that ends the world. That’s not what it is, and nothing that happens now will bring it about.
The Battle of Armageddon takes place at the end of the Tribulation period described in Revelation 16:16. When it happens, if you’re a Christian, you don’t have to worry about it. If you have been born again by receiving Christ as your Savior, you will have been raptured out seven years earlier and will be coming with Christ in the air on the winning side. At Armageddon the armies of the world will gather to defy the Lord and fight against His return, and in a moment they will be destroyed. We don’t have to worry about Armageddon.
We do believe we are in the end times. In the last three weeks we’ve been looking at the signs. The only clue as to the time frame for the Lord’s return is Israel being restored to their land. That happened in 1948. Everything else that has happened since then only serves to give us more perspective as to the meaning of things we see in the Book of Revelation. Next week we are going to look at the Tribulation period described in Revelation 5-19. Today we are considering Dispensationalism. I referred to this idea in the first message in this series, and today I will try to explain it.
I. Two Theological constructs: Covenantal and Dispensational.
There are two basic theological systems that have come down to us in our day. The first is Covenant Theology. A covenant can be described as a structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. The reformer, John Calvin, formed this system five hundred years ago. It is followed mostly by Presbyterian and Reformed Churches today.
Theologically a covenant is an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and His people. There were several covenants made during the Old Testament times. The first was the Adamic Covenant between God and the first man. There was also a covenant with Noah after the flood. The Abrahamic Covenant promised to make a nation of Abraham’s descendants. There are several others including the Davidic Covenant, which guaranteed the perpetuity of David’s House. When Christ returns He will rule from the Throne of David.
Covenant Theology, however, is based on a system of only three major covenants, Works, Grace, and Redemption. The Works Covenant represents the past, Grace represents the present, and Redemption the future. It relies on an allegorical (symbolic) interpretation of Scripture and believes the New Testament Church succeeded Israel as God’s chosen people.
A dispensation is an administration or a system of management. The Greek word can also be translated as stewardship. In theology a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time. It recognizes divinely appointed ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. It is an evangelical futurist biblical interpretation that sees God relating to man in different ways under different covenants in historical periods. It gives us a perspective of history and how it relates to the Bible and God.
There are two primary distinctives in dispensationalism: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of the Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program.
The Dispensational concept was written out by a Scottish theologian named John Darby in the 1830s, and promoted by C.I. Schofield in his reference Bible in the 20th century. Thus it has received much criticism from Covenant theologians for being a “new” doctrine only recently formulated and therefore discredited. We might say the same thing about Covenant Theology since it was only invented during the Reformation, and there is no scriptural or historical precedence for any similar teaching prior to that time.
However, as we have seen in our text the word “dispensation” is found in the Bible. The Greek word is translated “dispensation” four times, and is also translated “stewardship” three other times in the New Testament. And, for example, John made a contrast between the Age of the Law and the Age of Grace in John 1:17.
The concept of dispensations has been found in the writings of several theologians through the centuries dating back as early as Irenaeus in the second century, and Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest of all Catholic theologians, in the fifth century. Three hundred years ago the hymn writer, Isaac Watts, who was also a pastor and theologian, developed a chart of theological divisions in history. It is true that Dispensationalism as a theological study has only been recently fully developed, but previous attempts have been made, and it is only with Israel back in their homeland that the concept can now be fully understood.
II. Three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to read the Scripture.
The three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to look at Scripture are philosophical, biblical, and practical.
It is the best way philosophically because the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Words have meaning and should be taken for what they mean, not for some spiritual explanation. For example, suppose I were to tell you “I am going to the mall this week.” Now I’ve been to the mall last week and many times before, but you wouldn’t look at my statement and say, Well, he fulfilled that prophecy last week, so there must be some other spiritual meaning to it that refers to the last time he went. You wouldn’t say that, you would take me literally at my word.
So why then, as Covenant theology does, should we take the Book of Revelation, a book full of prophetic events that have never yet happened, and say that it has some spiritual meaning that was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? If you can discount Revelation as a literal book, what other books might you decide are just spiritually speaking? John also wrote the Gospel of John. Should it also be taken as just an allegory? And who has the authority to choose? If you can decide one portion of Scripture is spiritual and not literal, what is to stop me from thinking another passage is just spiritual? Which one of us would be right? Before long we would have the entire Bible relegated to symbolism and we’d have no basis to believe anything.
This is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons do. Anything in the Bible that does not fit their theology they determine to be only a spiritual symbol. Why should we follow a theological practice that is based on the same fallacies of cult theologies? Now understand that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation, but there is a literal meaning to each of the symbols, and it is all future. That is the only consistent way to look at Scripture.
Dispensationalism is the best way biblically because every prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, the thirty pieces of silver, His sayings on the cross, and His resurrection occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If the literal method is not used in studying and interpreting the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible.
The third reason is the practicality of a literal interpretation. If the Bible is taken literally, there is only one way it can be interpreted and there is no confusion. If the literal method is not used in studying the Scriptures, then every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says....” Sadly, this is the case in much of what is called interpretation today.
Some of you know there has been a lot of controversy about Bob Jones University recently. Many people are not satisfied with the way they have handled it. I was in a conversation with one graduate who said that God spoke to her through a verse in Isaiah that she should get her Congressman and Senators involved in holding BJU accountable. First, she doesn’t understand the American Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, which is designed to keep the government out of Christian business. More importantly, she doesn’t understand the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation. You cannot take one verse at random out of the context in which it is written and claim a personal message from God. 2 Peter 1:20 clearly refutes that idea. There is no Scripture of any private interpretation, it says.
By the way, I am on the same side of the argument as this friend of mine. I don’t think BJU has adequately handled the problem, but her method is not right. The literal interpretation of Scripture is the only consistent way to interpret Scripture.
III. Basic beliefs of Dispensationalism.
Before we look at the dispensations, there are four basic beliefs that dispensationalists hold that will help to understand the system. One is that there are two distinct peoples in God’s economy: Israel and the Church. The second is that the church has not replaced Israel. God’s promises to Israel (Abrahamic Covenant) have not been transferred to the church. Third, while God is now focusing His attention on the Church, He will focus again on Israel in the millennial kingdom.
The fourth is that salvation has always been by faith. People were saved by faith in God in the Old Testament era, not by works as Covenant Theology suggests. People are saved by faith in the Son of God in the New Testament, which is merely a more specific identification of God since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.
IV. Seven Dispensational periods seen in Scripture.
There are seven dispensational periods that give historical perspective to the Scripture and give us an understanding of how God has worked with people through the ages. So let’s examine each one.
1. The Age of Innocence (Genesis 1-3:7).
This first dispensation lasted from the creation to the fall of man into sin, sometime before 4,000 BC. The world was in perfection. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God. God’s commands for them were to replenish the earth with children; subdue the earth (farm it, plant crops, use the natural resources of the land), have dominion over the animals, care for the garden, and do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This dispensation was short lived and ended with Adam’s disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.
2. The Age of Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8).
By counting genealogies we see this period lasted about 1656 years from sometime before 4,000 BC to around 2550 BC. In this age there is no church or government to hold anyone accountable for the way they live. It was up to man’s conscience.
Now there are some things we do need to read into the Scripture a little. For example, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. Abel’s was accepted, but Cain’s was rejected because it wasn’t a blood sacrifice. How were they to know that? Obviously God told Adam what would be required and he passed it on to his sons. One was obedient and one rebelled according to their consciences. It demonstrates what man will do when left to his own machinations.
We hear all the time people crying out for more laws or policies to reduce crime and bring about peace. If we level the economic playing field; if we eliminate poverty; if we get rid of guns; if the government takes care of us! These will never work. Socialist ideas will never bring about peace. They won’t because they leave God out of the equation. All the evolutionary talk about man improving himself and making a better world is blind narcissism. Man without God always descends into moral wickedness and depravity.
The two most important aspects of this dispensation are the curse of sin and the promise of a Savior (Genesis 3:15). The age ended with the destruction of all mankind by flood. Only Noah and his family survived.
3. Age of Human Government (Genesis 9-11).
There were many changes in the world after the flood in both the natural world and the animal kingdom. The earth apparently tilted on its axis, a result of the floodwaters, and we have the beginning of seasons. Animals suddenly became wild and feared man. There were also two important changes concerning man. One, he was allowed to eat meat, and capital punishment was established (Genesis 9:1-3). This at least implied human government, and it wouldn’t take long before the world saw its first government, which turned out to be a dictatorship, and a rather evil one at that.
God gave Noah the promise never again to destroy the earth by flood and signed it with the rainbow. Then He told Noah to replenish the earth. Apparently God wanted men to scatter and subdue many lands around the world, but man didn’t disperse. Instead he built a tower at Babel to honor the greatness of man, and their solidarity and pride in rebellion against God. In response God confused the languages and forced the people to scatter into different language groups and the beginning of nations. The age lasted about 400 years and ended with the call of Abraham.
4. The Age of Promise (Genesis 12-Exodus 19).
Man’s conscience failed to hold him accountable, and the establishment of government to hold men accountable also failed. So after confusing the languages and scattering the people around the world God determined to work through one man and his family, rather than through human governments.
God made a covenant with Abraham in which He promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation. In Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed. This was fulfilled in Christ and salvation being made available to the entire world. He also gave Abraham the promise of a homeland, which included all of present day Palestine, but stretched from the Nile River to the Euphrates. The sign of the covenant was to be circumcision, and it was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, but was confined to the Hebrew people only. In other words, it was not transferrable to the Church. This period began with the call of Abraham, and lasted nearly 700 years until the Exodus from Egypt.
5. The Age of the Law (Exodus 20-the end of the Gospels).
At the end of the last dispensation, Jacob and his sons were down in Egypt to escape a famine. They remained there 430 years (Exodus 12:40) until God called Moses to lead them out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, and down to Mt. Sinai. There, God gave Moses the Law.
From this point on God would deal with the Jewish nation through the Law and by His presence in the Ark of the Covenant. Priests in the lineage of Levi directed Temple worship. Further communication would come through the prophets. This Age of the Law lasted from about 1491 BC when Moses received the Law until about AD 31 when Christ rose from the grave.
At one time during David and Solomon’s reigns Israel occupied or controlled most of the territory God had deeded to them. But due to disobedience and continued rebellion, the kingdom first split into two, and then the Jews in both kingdoms were conquered, in 722 BC by the Assyrians, and 586 BC by the Babylonians, and were scattered. They were brought together and briefly were an independent nation from 175-63 BC, but then they were conquered by Rome and were enslaved when Christ was born. It was the Roman governor Pontius Pilate that condemned Jesus to the cross.
The Age of the Law ended with Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the grave. Christ did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled the purpose of the Law. The Law was a schoolmaster convincing the world of sin. It offered temporary atonement through blood sacrifices, but it was all a picture of the perfect sacrifice that came in Jesus Christ. His perfect redemption fulfilled the Law.
6. The Age of Grace (Acts 1-Revelation 19).
The Age of Grace began with the death and resurrection of Christ. Some suggest it began with the Lord’s Supper the night before the crucifixion. God’s grace is extended worldwide to both Jews and Gentiles. Man’s responsibility in this age is to believe in Christ (John 3:18). In this age born again believers have the advantage of the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts (John 14:16-26) and sealing them until the day of Redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
This is the age we are living in right now. It is our privilege not to be any longer under the Law, but to have liberty of conscience in our daily walk with Christ. However, liberty is not to be seen as an excuse for licentiousness. We are to live under the conviction and leading of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and make sound decisions based on the will of God, and not our own. We are to be holy as Christ is holy. We are to think thoughts that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and full of good report. We are to walk worthy of the Lord.
God gave the Church one command for this age: we are to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria, and in the farthest regions of the earth (Acts 1:8). This age has lasted now nearly 2,000 years, and nobody knows when it will end, but we do believe we are in the last days before the Rapture.
When we are called out in the Rapture, an antichrist will ascend to world power for a seven-year period. God’s wrath of judgment will be poured out on the world at that time, but even though the Holy Spirit will not be present, God’s grace will be. Many will be saved as they oppose the antichrist and trust the Lord. This Age of Grace will end with the Second Coming of Christ.
7. The Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Revelation 19-20).
The return of Christ will fulfill the last of the messianic prophecies concerning Him and His reign on the earth. The Jewish nation will be redeemed and Christ will sit on the Throne of David in Jerusalem. The subjects of this kingdom will be those Jews plus all Gentiles who refused the Mark of the Beast and accepted Christ, and survived the Tribulation period. No unsaved person will be allowed to enter this kingdom. Satan will be bound for a thousand years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:2-3)
The reign of Christ will be one of complete peace and prosperity. The world will blossom once again like the Garden of Eden. The animal kingdom will again be subdued and at peace with mankind. The wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the goat, the lion and the calf will dwell together (Isaiah 11). The lame will leap as a deer, the dumb will sing, the blind will see and the deaf will hear (Isaiah 35). It will be a perfect world.
Then at the end of the millennium, Satan will be let loose for a brief time to gather a final army of malcontents and will be defeated. As the Millennial Kingdom ends, an eternal Kingdom begins (Revelation 21-22).
Conclusion: These are the seven dispensations that we believe most adequately explain the way God has worked among men since the creation. They give us a spiritual perspective on history that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Scripture. And because Scripture has been fulfilled literally in the past, we have sure confidence that all prophetic utterances concerning the future will also be fulfilled literally. This is our great hope. The Lord will one day come for us. He has given us many clues to suggest we are in the last days before the Rapture takes place.
This is not the time to sit down and become complacent or despair at the world’s condition. It is the time to get busy telling people about Christ, about our hope for the future, and how they can have it too.
Introduction: During the Cold War the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the international belief that said that as long as there is parity in nuclear weapons and missiles the world would be safe from a nuclear war because everybody would be afraid to use them. It set off an arms race that had people in so much fear that we actually had “duck and cover” drills in public schools. It also set off a plethora of cheap sci-fi movies in the 1950s with World War 3 scenarios where the last surviving humans are trying to escape the radiation that has turned other people into monsters.
The most serious and realistic of these was a 1959 film called On the Beach that starred Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. The plot in this story had the entire northern hemisphere destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, and the only survivors on earth were in Australia waiting for the radiation to blow their way. It was a serious consideration of what the world might have been like, and there were no monsters.
I saw the movie on television when I was about eight or nine years old. We saw it at my dad’s place. I asked my dad’s wife if it was true about the nuclear weapons. Oh, yes, she assured me. There are weapons that could destroy the whole world right now. I went to bed in fear for several nights after that thinking the world could be destroyed at any minute, until I asked my mother about it and she gave me a better explanation.
A lot of people think a nuclear war such as this would be Armageddon. In 2003 as the US was preparing to invade Iraq critics were warning that it could bring about Armageddon. This all comes from a misunderstanding that Armageddon might be a World War 3 nuclear holocaust that ends the world. That’s not what it is, and nothing that happens now will bring it about.
The Battle of Armageddon takes place at the end of the Tribulation period described in Revelation 16:16. When it happens, if you’re a Christian, you don’t have to worry about it. If you have been born again by receiving Christ as your Savior, you will have been raptured out seven years earlier and will be coming with Christ in the air on the winning side. At Armageddon the armies of the world will gather to defy the Lord and fight against His return, and in a moment they will be destroyed. We don’t have to worry about Armageddon.
We do believe we are in the end times. In the last three weeks we’ve been looking at the signs. The only clue as to the time frame for the Lord’s return is Israel being restored to their land. That happened in 1948. Everything else that has happened since then only serves to give us more perspective as to the meaning of things we see in the Book of Revelation. Next week we are going to look at the Tribulation period described in Revelation 5-19. Today we are considering Dispensationalism. I referred to this idea in the first message in this series, and today I will try to explain it.
I. Two Theological constructs: Covenantal and Dispensational.
There are two basic theological systems that have come down to us in our day. The first is Covenant Theology. A covenant can be described as a structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. The reformer, John Calvin, formed this system five hundred years ago. It is followed mostly by Presbyterian and Reformed Churches today.
Theologically a covenant is an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and His people. There were several covenants made during the Old Testament times. The first was the Adamic Covenant between God and the first man. There was also a covenant with Noah after the flood. The Abrahamic Covenant promised to make a nation of Abraham’s descendants. There are several others including the Davidic Covenant, which guaranteed the perpetuity of David’s House. When Christ returns He will rule from the Throne of David.
Covenant Theology, however, is based on a system of only three major covenants, Works, Grace, and Redemption. The Works Covenant represents the past, Grace represents the present, and Redemption the future. It relies on an allegorical (symbolic) interpretation of Scripture and believes the New Testament Church succeeded Israel as God’s chosen people.
A dispensation is an administration or a system of management. The Greek word can also be translated as stewardship. In theology a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time. It recognizes divinely appointed ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. It is an evangelical futurist biblical interpretation that sees God relating to man in different ways under different covenants in historical periods. It gives us a perspective of history and how it relates to the Bible and God.
There are two primary distinctives in dispensationalism: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of the Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program.
The Dispensational concept was written out by a Scottish theologian named John Darby in the 1830s, and promoted by C.I. Schofield in his reference Bible in the 20th century. Thus it has received much criticism from Covenant theologians for being a “new” doctrine only recently formulated and therefore discredited. We might say the same thing about Covenant Theology since it was only invented during the Reformation, and there is no scriptural or historical precedence for any similar teaching prior to that time.
However, as we have seen in our text the word “dispensation” is found in the Bible. The Greek word is translated “dispensation” four times, and is also translated “stewardship” three other times in the New Testament. And, for example, John made a contrast between the Age of the Law and the Age of Grace in John 1:17.
The concept of dispensations has been found in the writings of several theologians through the centuries dating back as early as Irenaeus in the second century, and Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest of all Catholic theologians, in the fifth century. Three hundred years ago the hymn writer, Isaac Watts, who was also a pastor and theologian, developed a chart of theological divisions in history. It is true that Dispensationalism as a theological study has only been recently fully developed, but previous attempts have been made, and it is only with Israel back in their homeland that the concept can now be fully understood.
II. Three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to read the Scripture.
The three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to look at Scripture are philosophical, biblical, and practical.
It is the best way philosophically because the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Words have meaning and should be taken for what they mean, not for some spiritual explanation. For example, suppose I were to tell you “I am going to the mall this week.” Now I’ve been to the mall last week and many times before, but you wouldn’t look at my statement and say, Well, he fulfilled that prophecy last week, so there must be some other spiritual meaning to it that refers to the last time he went. You wouldn’t say that, you would take me literally at my word.
So why then, as Covenant theology does, should we take the Book of Revelation, a book full of prophetic events that have never yet happened, and say that it has some spiritual meaning that was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? If you can discount Revelation as a literal book, what other books might you decide are just spiritually speaking? John also wrote the Gospel of John. Should it also be taken as just an allegory? And who has the authority to choose? If you can decide one portion of Scripture is spiritual and not literal, what is to stop me from thinking another passage is just spiritual? Which one of us would be right? Before long we would have the entire Bible relegated to symbolism and we’d have no basis to believe anything.
This is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons do. Anything in the Bible that does not fit their theology they determine to be only a spiritual symbol. Why should we follow a theological practice that is based on the same fallacies of cult theologies? Now understand that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation, but there is a literal meaning to each of the symbols, and it is all future. That is the only consistent way to look at Scripture.
Dispensationalism is the best way biblically because every prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, the thirty pieces of silver, His sayings on the cross, and His resurrection occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If the literal method is not used in studying and interpreting the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible.
The third reason is the practicality of a literal interpretation. If the Bible is taken literally, there is only one way it can be interpreted and there is no confusion. If the literal method is not used in studying the Scriptures, then every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says....” Sadly, this is the case in much of what is called interpretation today.
Some of you know there has been a lot of controversy about Bob Jones University recently. Many people are not satisfied with the way they have handled it. I was in a conversation with one graduate who said that God spoke to her through a verse in Isaiah that she should get her Congressman and Senators involved in holding BJU accountable. First, she doesn’t understand the American Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, which is designed to keep the government out of Christian business. More importantly, she doesn’t understand the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation. You cannot take one verse at random out of the context in which it is written and claim a personal message from God. 2 Peter 1:20 clearly refutes that idea. There is no Scripture of any private interpretation, it says.
By the way, I am on the same side of the argument as this friend of mine. I don’t think BJU has adequately handled the problem, but her method is not right. The literal interpretation of Scripture is the only consistent way to interpret Scripture.
III. Basic beliefs of Dispensationalism.
Before we look at the dispensations, there are four basic beliefs that dispensationalists hold that will help to understand the system. One is that there are two distinct peoples in God’s economy: Israel and the Church. The second is that the church has not replaced Israel. God’s promises to Israel (Abrahamic Covenant) have not been transferred to the church. Third, while God is now focusing His attention on the Church, He will focus again on Israel in the millennial kingdom.
The fourth is that salvation has always been by faith. People were saved by faith in God in the Old Testament era, not by works as Covenant Theology suggests. People are saved by faith in the Son of God in the New Testament, which is merely a more specific identification of God since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.
IV. Seven Dispensational periods seen in Scripture.
There are seven dispensational periods that give historical perspective to the Scripture and give us an understanding of how God has worked with people through the ages. So let’s examine each one.
1. The Age of Innocence (Genesis 1-3:7).
This first dispensation lasted from the creation to the fall of man into sin, sometime before 4,000 BC. The world was in perfection. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God. God’s commands for them were to replenish the earth with children; subdue the earth (farm it, plant crops, use the natural resources of the land), have dominion over the animals, care for the garden, and do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This dispensation was short lived and ended with Adam’s disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.
2. The Age of Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8).
By counting genealogies we see this period lasted about 1656 years from sometime before 4,000 BC to around 2550 BC. In this age there is no church or government to hold anyone accountable for the way they live. It was up to man’s conscience.
Now there are some things we do need to read into the Scripture a little. For example, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. Abel’s was accepted, but Cain’s was rejected because it wasn’t a blood sacrifice. How were they to know that? Obviously God told Adam what would be required and he passed it on to his sons. One was obedient and one rebelled according to their consciences. It demonstrates what man will do when left to his own machinations.
We hear all the time people crying out for more laws or policies to reduce crime and bring about peace. If we level the economic playing field; if we eliminate poverty; if we get rid of guns; if the government takes care of us! These will never work. Socialist ideas will never bring about peace. They won’t because they leave God out of the equation. All the evolutionary talk about man improving himself and making a better world is blind narcissism. Man without God always descends into moral wickedness and depravity.
The two most important aspects of this dispensation are the curse of sin and the promise of a Savior (Genesis 3:15). The age ended with the destruction of all mankind by flood. Only Noah and his family survived.
3. Age of Human Government (Genesis 9-11).
There were many changes in the world after the flood in both the natural world and the animal kingdom. The earth apparently tilted on its axis, a result of the floodwaters, and we have the beginning of seasons. Animals suddenly became wild and feared man. There were also two important changes concerning man. One, he was allowed to eat meat, and capital punishment was established (Genesis 9:1-3). This at least implied human government, and it wouldn’t take long before the world saw its first government, which turned out to be a dictatorship, and a rather evil one at that.
God gave Noah the promise never again to destroy the earth by flood and signed it with the rainbow. Then He told Noah to replenish the earth. Apparently God wanted men to scatter and subdue many lands around the world, but man didn’t disperse. Instead he built a tower at Babel to honor the greatness of man, and their solidarity and pride in rebellion against God. In response God confused the languages and forced the people to scatter into different language groups and the beginning of nations. The age lasted about 400 years and ended with the call of Abraham.
4. The Age of Promise (Genesis 12-Exodus 19).
Man’s conscience failed to hold him accountable, and the establishment of government to hold men accountable also failed. So after confusing the languages and scattering the people around the world God determined to work through one man and his family, rather than through human governments.
God made a covenant with Abraham in which He promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation. In Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed. This was fulfilled in Christ and salvation being made available to the entire world. He also gave Abraham the promise of a homeland, which included all of present day Palestine, but stretched from the Nile River to the Euphrates. The sign of the covenant was to be circumcision, and it was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, but was confined to the Hebrew people only. In other words, it was not transferrable to the Church. This period began with the call of Abraham, and lasted nearly 700 years until the Exodus from Egypt.
5. The Age of the Law (Exodus 20-the end of the Gospels).
At the end of the last dispensation, Jacob and his sons were down in Egypt to escape a famine. They remained there 430 years (Exodus 12:40) until God called Moses to lead them out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, and down to Mt. Sinai. There, God gave Moses the Law.
From this point on God would deal with the Jewish nation through the Law and by His presence in the Ark of the Covenant. Priests in the lineage of Levi directed Temple worship. Further communication would come through the prophets. This Age of the Law lasted from about 1491 BC when Moses received the Law until about AD 31 when Christ rose from the grave.
At one time during David and Solomon’s reigns Israel occupied or controlled most of the territory God had deeded to them. But due to disobedience and continued rebellion, the kingdom first split into two, and then the Jews in both kingdoms were conquered, in 722 BC by the Assyrians, and 586 BC by the Babylonians, and were scattered. They were brought together and briefly were an independent nation from 175-63 BC, but then they were conquered by Rome and were enslaved when Christ was born. It was the Roman governor Pontius Pilate that condemned Jesus to the cross.
The Age of the Law ended with Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the grave. Christ did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled the purpose of the Law. The Law was a schoolmaster convincing the world of sin. It offered temporary atonement through blood sacrifices, but it was all a picture of the perfect sacrifice that came in Jesus Christ. His perfect redemption fulfilled the Law.
6. The Age of Grace (Acts 1-Revelation 19).
The Age of Grace began with the death and resurrection of Christ. Some suggest it began with the Lord’s Supper the night before the crucifixion. God’s grace is extended worldwide to both Jews and Gentiles. Man’s responsibility in this age is to believe in Christ (John 3:18). In this age born again believers have the advantage of the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts (John 14:16-26) and sealing them until the day of Redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
This is the age we are living in right now. It is our privilege not to be any longer under the Law, but to have liberty of conscience in our daily walk with Christ. However, liberty is not to be seen as an excuse for licentiousness. We are to live under the conviction and leading of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and make sound decisions based on the will of God, and not our own. We are to be holy as Christ is holy. We are to think thoughts that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and full of good report. We are to walk worthy of the Lord.
God gave the Church one command for this age: we are to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria, and in the farthest regions of the earth (Acts 1:8). This age has lasted now nearly 2,000 years, and nobody knows when it will end, but we do believe we are in the last days before the Rapture.
When we are called out in the Rapture, an antichrist will ascend to world power for a seven-year period. God’s wrath of judgment will be poured out on the world at that time, but even though the Holy Spirit will not be present, God’s grace will be. Many will be saved as they oppose the antichrist and trust the Lord. This Age of Grace will end with the Second Coming of Christ.
7. The Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Revelation 19-20).
The return of Christ will fulfill the last of the messianic prophecies concerning Him and His reign on the earth. The Jewish nation will be redeemed and Christ will sit on the Throne of David in Jerusalem. The subjects of this kingdom will be those Jews plus all Gentiles who refused the Mark of the Beast and accepted Christ, and survived the Tribulation period. No unsaved person will be allowed to enter this kingdom. Satan will be bound for a thousand years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:2-3)
The reign of Christ will be one of complete peace and prosperity. The world will blossom once again like the Garden of Eden. The animal kingdom will again be subdued and at peace with mankind. The wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the goat, the lion and the calf will dwell together (Isaiah 11). The lame will leap as a deer, the dumb will sing, the blind will see and the deaf will hear (Isaiah 35). It will be a perfect world.
Then at the end of the millennium, Satan will be let loose for a brief time to gather a final army of malcontents and will be defeated. As the Millennial Kingdom ends, an eternal Kingdom begins (Revelation 21-22).
Conclusion: These are the seven dispensations that we believe most adequately explain the way God has worked among men since the creation. They give us a spiritual perspective on history that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Scripture. And because Scripture has been fulfilled literally in the past, we have sure confidence that all prophetic utterances concerning the future will also be fulfilled literally. This is our great hope. The Lord will one day come for us. He has given us many clues to suggest we are in the last days before the Rapture takes place.
This is not the time to sit down and become complacent or despair at the world’s condition. It is the time to get busy telling people about Christ, about our hope for the future, and how they can have it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)