Friday, October 28, 2016

Religious Freedom & Public Service. Are They Compatible?

We are all aware of the County Clerk, in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her "right of conscious" in exercising her freedom of religion. In that case the surprise was the number of Christians who objected to Mrs. Davis exercise of her religious beliefs. Some said that she did not have a right to object because gay marriage had been ratified by the courts as law and because she was in a public position that the duties of that position were greater than her ability to carry out her faith in public. The controversy lasted for quite some time and ended when the Governor signed a court order which allowed marriage licenses to be issued without the name of a County Clerk attached. Therefore Mrs. Davis was relived of any obligation to endorse gay marriage publicly while exercising her freedom of religion against nuptualizing such arrangements by signing marriage certificates.

Fast Forward...Midnight Train To Georgia
Rev. Dr. Eric Walsh 
Georgia, quickly becoming the hotbed of activity AGAINST religious freedom, has not only been threatened by Tyler Perry (that he will move his studio unless the State denied a religious freedom bill...result: I WON'T BE SEEING HIS MOVIE ANYTIME SOON!), also recently issued a sanction against a State employee.

It seems that Dr. Eric Walsh was fired from the Georgia Dept. Of Public Health earlier this year because his personal and religious views of homosexuality and evolution were contrary to the "State's" views of those same issues. What is equally as bad, is that the State, evidently prior to dismissing the Dr., demanded that he fork over his sermons and messages preached to his congregation regarding those issues. In addition, the GA Attorney General is now asking for a copy of the minister's sermons to examine them as well. What is worse is that the state is now doing this under a court order.

The State's Way Out

Of course the GA. State Dept. Of Public Health had to know how absurd that their request was. Evidently, instead of claiming that the Dr.'s personal and religious beliefs were the culprit and reason for his termination, they tried to switch the issue as many employers often do in current times, claiming that the Dr. failed to disclose that he had employment "outside" of the Dept. of Health. According to them, it was his failure to report that information that was the cause of his dismissal. Do we think that if he was "cutting grass" on the side, that he would have been dismissed? I don't think so!!!! So at the very least this shows that the State may have discriminated against him in employment if he disclosed that he was a pastor or receiving salary or compensation from a church as well. 

The Real Deal

Anyone that can read "between the tea leaves" can see that the GA. Dept. Of Health is CHALK FULL OF GARBAGE and the Attorney General's office is on something too...the truth is that they actually fired this man because of what he believes, and what he affirms by way of his belief as it pertains to religion, and Christianity in particular...
“He was fired for something he said in a sermon,”“If the government is allowed to fire someone over what he said in his sermons, they can come after any of us for our beliefs on anything.” ~  attorney Jeremy Dys 
Now fire a Muslim for what they say or teaching in a message and see what happens??? Speaking of public service, under Sharia, a Muslim woman cannot even shake a man's hand and a man is restricted from touching a woman that he is not married to...Now, do that in the GA. Dept. Of Public Health. Refuse to even touch or engage individuals of the opposite sex based on religion and the exercise of religious freedom, and I guarantee that there would be all kinds of accommodations and there would NEVER be a problem with employment...In fact he or she would probably get a raise or some deep promotion and plenty of recognition. Allow the Muslim to continue to believe teaching against homosexuality and evolution (as Islam teaches) and they would STILL BE WORKING and secure on the job today!

What the state of GA did is called the new style of Christian persecution, or persecution against Christian and biblical belief. In other words the Christian minister is singled out and treated differently because of what he or she believes, and then the employer seeks some way to rationalize their actions in distancing themselves from the person. The main effort is to rid the workplace of beliefs and belief systems that are contrary to the morality that the workplace feels that it would like to establish, no matter how immoral that workplace or work environment may be.

The very fact that the State feels that they can regulate personal belief that is rooted and based in religion, especially peaceful religion and religious practices and concepts, is rather disturbing and should be something that every serious Christian should be aware of. 

Same Thing, New Era, Different Twist

Looking back at Nazi Germany, we are reminded of the need of the State to create and present a culture and demand that the church to submit to it. The State seeks relationship with the church as much as it, the State, can be preserved or preserve itself.

Take a look back at Nazi Germany for a minute. 
"German tradition had no room for political resistance from the theological perspective, because for more than four hundred years, the evangelical churches in Germany had been closely tied to the state for protection. Using Luther's teaching of "the two kingdoms" (zwei Reiche) , the church and the state had long agreed that the church would not reach into the political sphere and the state would not violate the spiritual realm." [ Stroud, Dean G, "Preaching In Hitler's Shadow, sermons of resistance in the Third Reich" 2013 William B. Eerdmans Link: HERE]
Yes, from a historical perspective, the Socialist State had an interest in what was being taught from the pulpit, even to the point of making "agreements" on how to engage publicly. The agreement that the state needed was for the church to not engage itself in attempting to change and or regulate the State in its ideology allowing the State to set the cultural mood. In other words, the church was to be "quiet" as possible publicly, but take care of its business internally. This compromise had a great price as many non-Jewish clergy would be persecuted and killed simply because of what they believed and taught. The Nazis knew that ideas have consequences, and the brutality of their Reiche against ideals that it did not like or accept, proved it.

Landscape Of The German Church 

In Nazi Germany, among the Protestant churches there arose primarily 2 different divisions or beliefs. There arose the type of Christian known as the Deutsche Christen, or "German Christians. and the other type known as the Bekennende Kirche—the "Confessing Church Christian". The Deutsche Christians were fervently rooted in State leadership, accepting the State Socialism that defined it, loved and taught commitment to the Fiihrer, calling for nationalism and embracing whatever they could that would affirm their racism and superiority based on race. 

On the other hand, the Bekennende Kirche or the "confessing church"Christian, introduced the Barmen Confession of the faith which tied the church to the leadership of Christ and the supremacy and leadership of the word of God as opposed to an earthly leader. From these ranks, whether reluctantly or not, leaders such as Deitrick Bonhoffer, who was executed for a plot to overthrow Hitler, and Martin Niemoller, who was banished to concentration camps for speaking against Hitler, arose. 

Of course there were moderates in these positions as well. Those who called themselves "neutral". It was the neutral church that did not see a benefit in opposing the State, claiming that the plight for all would simply be made worse by resistance. Therefore, some were relegated to doing anything else but addressing the real issues and bringing about change.

There were individuals who would simply help as well. Those who would help Jews escape, provide shelter, food and clothes even against executive orders of the Fiihrer. Many of these individuals would severely suffer for their actions, being betrayed by neighbors, called unpatriotic, and would ultimately be mixed in with Jews and marked for death and killed.

The Catholic Church did not seem to suffer from as much confusion as the Protestant church did. They stuck to Papal Encyclicals which appeared to walk a fine line between the worship of Christ and allegiance to the leader of head of State. Many of the Catholic clergy also availed themselves to helping Jews and speaking against the antisemitism of the state. they too were ripe targets of State anger.

An article on the reaction of the State to openly confessed religious views said this:
When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country. [ HERE]
Conclusion, What Can We Learn?

When viewed through the lens of history, we can say that there are many things that remind us of what has taken place and what we observe today. However, there are many things yet different. Here we are in a "free" nation and one that is not a Socialist empire, but we are faced with many challenges of racism, nationalism and a host of other issues. Politically, we yet remain a "free" society although a great deal of the country wants state socialism both in economics and in governance. 

As proof of this we see politician Bernie Sanders, who took his socialism to the democratic party and was nearly made the party's nominee for President. In response to the popularity of the Sanders platform, Hillary Clinton not only adopted, but endorsed many aspects of the Socialist agenda of Sanders in order to appeal to many of his followers. That same sort of socialism is highly accepted in the Black community especially when the talk of it pertains to greater government support within the community, free education and the illusive level playing field and inclusion of all and the elimination of social class. What many have not thought of, is under this rubric and ideology, what happens to personal freedoms? What happens to religious freedom and the ability to self-govern? 

What happened in Germany was the power of the State directly confronting the freedom of mind, heart and conscience through and by religion. Notice, that a person can come up with some of any kind of idea and not have it challenged too much until there is a near tragedy or tragic event, whereas any practice, tenet or belief, especially that based and rooted within Christian theology, seemingly no matter how innocuous, is met with harsh resistance, skepticism, disdain, and even intolerance.  

In this case the State is primarily contending that Christian values and teachings are so incompatible with the State, that if someone believes what the bible teaches and embraces it as a sincerely held belief that their belief makes them incompatible with even employment by the State. It doesn't matter if your public teaching aligns with the State or that you do your job, it matters what you believe.

Maybe the church can take a marker from the world here. The world knows that "belief" is important. The church has a hard time understanding that concept. Ooh, it often says what it believes by way of confession, but as I stated earlier, beliefs have consequences. Are we wishy-washy in or beliefs or are we centered and focused on Christ life Germany's "Confessing church" was? 

These are the times that God is calling for every Christian to make their faith known to the world. I believe only them that stand WILL stand in the day of judgement. I know I want to be one that stands for my Lord. How about you?


Read more!

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

109th Holy Convocation, COGIC IMPACTS & A Safe Church Plan

The 2016 annual Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ (Nov. 7th ~ Nov. 13th) is on the horizon. This year is also an election year within the church with many individuals vieing for position at some level or another.

Schedule For 109th Annual Holy Convocation, click HERE

Current Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake recently unveiled a new church culture initiative called "COGIC IMPACTS" which is bound to be the talk among preachers and church leaders. From the website:
"COGIC IMPACTS is a culture model that will help us build a stronger culture. This model was designed and developed expressly for COGIC and has been introduced by Bishop Blake to COGIC employees and the General Board. COGIC IMPACTS is a deliberate attempt to define our culture and how we will work in tandem."
With the call that "what we do is who we are" COGIC IMPACTS outlines the following regarding the acronym:
Integrity – The quality of being honest and having strong moral uprightness.
Measurable Results – Establishing SMART goals that highlight success.
Passionate – Self-driven attitude about your work that leads to success.
Adaptable – Able to adjust to new conditions. 
Collaborative – Working together to create or produce solutions. 
Timely Manner – Done Expeditiously 
Service Oriented – Providing outstanding service & support to COGIC and on behalf of COGIC.
To enlighten us further on what is being said, the term "SMART" is often accredited to concepts of Time Management and Organizational Objectives produced and presented by Peter Drucker spoken of in 1981 by George T. Doran in an issue of "Management Review". Defining the elements and boarders of good management, the acronym is generally summarized as follows:
~ Well defined
~ Clear to anyone that has a basic knowledge of the project 
Measurable~ Know if the goal is obtainable and how far away completion is
~ Find out when you have achieved your goal 
Agreed Upon~ Agreement with all the stakeholders what the goals should be 
Realistic~ Within the availability of resources, knowledge and time 
Time-Based~ Enough time to achieve the goal
~ Not too much time, which can affect project performance
In essence, the Bishop is calling for a completely new culture in dealing with church management and administrative issues and moving forward as a church. Rather than view projects with emotion, our Bishop seems to be asking that we now view ministry and the causes within ministry with "intent" and with "purposeful planning". 

Pushback: "That is not a Spirit led"

Some will invariably view this approach as less "spiritual" than times past in which we were "led of the Spirit" to the extent that we solved and addressed issues first and planned later. It is a more cognitive approach than what we have experienced in the past. 

Interfacing "IMPACTS" With Sexual Misconduct & Abuse
While there is very little talk of it in open circles, the 109th Holy Convocation meets us with a host of issues challenging the "I" representing the integrity of many of our leaders. There are some issues regarding sexual impropriety and misconduct among church leaders and even Bishops that have come to the surface. There are some who have decided to live immoral ungodly double-lives. Caught on tape entertaining girlfriends attempting to cover their sins. Still there are others who's personal character is not befitting to leadership, becoming internet trolls, even cussing out individuals who do not agree with them. Then there are yet others who have an ever evolving list and chain of new illegitimate children coming to surface seemingly year after year. In some cases these are the "Eli"(s) who thought that they would not have to answer for their sins, but are sadly confronted with them now like never before. 

Then there is Earl Carter who implemented an all out attack on Presiding Bishop Blake leading and encouraging a host of haters to follow his sins, It seems that Earl Carter, so badly wanted the "attention" of the Presiding Bishop, that he recently went to completely new LOW, and sad level of destruction producing a FAKE "sex-tape" allegedly of our Presiding Bishop even against what appears to be an order for him to refrain from his personal attacks on the Bishop. Initially promising to "take down" the leader, it seems that Carter himself is now on the run, being taken down in some fashion trying to dodge his ultimate judgement which he seems to have heaped upon his own head with his never-ending rantings. 

For the REAL Victims or Survivors
Ministry of the church is what the church is called to do. Managing an organization, while commendable, is not exactly the mission or commission of the church. With that said, we can ask, what of LEGITIMATE cases that deal with our INTEGRITY as a church? If we are leading into the next generation with integrity as a mandate, how do we plan to deal with victims of sexual abuse and clergy misconduct? Do we think that it is essential to implement a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, that will protect our members and support a level of integrity that we seek? 

You see, it is not just good enough to talk about the speed and efficiency at which we do business. We MUST continue to act like and be a CHURCH. In that calling,  it is my firm belief that we must deal with and help those that are the most vulnerable among us and seek to apply the healing salve of Christ to all men, but in particularly to those to whom we have been entrusted to partner with in this spiritual mission

The mission of "I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council" is exactly this. IMBKCAC is an untapped resource, specifically designed to provide a level of INTEGRITY to the way the church protects and heals the most vulnerable among us. . 

What is our average church rating in:
The interface between the Pastor/leader and the congregation?
The interface between the congregation and ministry leaders?
Youth ministry integrity & safety?
Survivor support and path of liberation?
Planned congregational response to issues of sexual integrity & abuse?
Planned path for survivor restoration?
Does a solid network of services designed to heal survivors?
Path of restoration for families?
These are some of the evaluations that IMBKCAC will make in determining if your church, district or jurisdiction is a SAFE ENVIRONMENT. Out of all that we do, if we are not seeking to implement a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, we are falling far short of what we are to do in supporting and creating integrity. In other words, we have undermined the very first part of the acronym of IMPACTS...The "I" or INTEGRITY....

If we are seeking to be a church founded on integrity to biblical values, then we cannot continue to have elections without creating or mentioning a platform that delivers integrity tout every congregation, every district, every jurisdiction and the national church itself. For anyone skeptical of whether we need a SAFE CHURCH PLAN, please listen to these podcasts

COGIC Survivors Pt. 1

COGIC Survivors Pt. 2

COGIC Survivors Pt. 3

If one can hear those broadcasts, and not consider that we should have a sense of urgency in dealing with the issues of victimization in a much better way, then I don't believe that you have the heart of Christ.

In all, I believe that we have some opportunities to serve that we have not previously had or experienced. Will we rise to the challenge of not only an organizational and cultural change of operation, but also a cultural change of how we minister to victims of some of the worst experiences imaginable. I hope so. So far noone says a word. Maybe we will have the opportunity to once again raise the issue.


Read more!

Monday, October 24, 2016

Election Countdown & The Future Of American Freedom & Morality

Prov. 12:7
The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.
The 2016 Presidential election season is drawing to a close. In what has arguably been a hotly contested and probably the most contentious campaign in American history, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have outlined their positions which in many areas are in sharp contrast to one another. Of course, all of this has confused many who carry the same bible causing some to pit themselves against one another for one reason or another.
One thing is for sure, the candidates themselves both have serious issues. Hillary has email issues and a low value of confidence or trust among most non-democrats. Even among many democrats, Hillary is simply unable to connect and untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump has issues such as his characterizations of women, immigrants and his continued statements of the election being rigged which has caused many to distance themselves from him. The career politician is enraged because Trump is not a career politician and has seemed to amass a great deal of support without their assistance, support or political pandering. 

Voting "For" Or "Against"?

With all the confusion, many individuals have shrank away from the personality of the candidates. With neither personality being particularly appealing, some have taken the thought that they are not voting "for" any particular candidate, but voting "against" ideals and ideologies that are offensive and unsupportable. In other words, some are now looking to vote on the issues that concern them as opposed to voting for the "person" that they like or that appeals to their idea of being Presidential.   

Issues at odds:

Immigration & Immigration Reform...Republican Donald Trump has outlined an America that will do more than ever to secure it's boarders. He has even promised to build a wall that Mexico will "reimburse" America for. At the same time ratchet up pressure on individuals from foreign countries hostile to America and opposed to American interests. In a controversial plan, Donald has said that immigrants, in the country now illegally, could suffer deportation while others could come under greater scrutiny simply because of where they came from. Democrat Hilary Clinton has proposed a version of immigration reform which includes a "path to citizenship" which is tantamount to the Democratic ideal of amnesty, granting immediate and unquestioned citizenship to immigrants already in the country whether here legally or not. Amnesty is something that not even the Supreme Court has upheld in recent times and is not likely to pass until another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. 

Religious Freedom... Probably the most fundamental part of this election is religious freedom and what it means to be free religiously. Some of what this comes down to is who's bathroom do you believe men and women should be allowed to enter in public, and do you want to take rights away from a woman and give them to a man born a man by gender? In addition, do you believe that the State should impose state values on religious organizations and subdue their practices effectively forcing the churches to operate according to State values? 

Democrat Hillary Clinton claims to value religion and religious freedom as a deep part of the American experience. However, she has repeatedly said that she believes that religious values and beliefs are not static, but changeable to cultural values and therefore should be flexible in accommodating values that she and others in her camp believe are better suited to be called American values. recently, When speaking of Christians and Christian values as they oppose LGBT rights, she spoke of Christians (not merely Trump supporters) as "deplorable" and "irredeemable". While the media spun the commentary to infer that she was simply be speaking of "Trump supporters, the comments were actually in reference to committed Christians living out their faith, holding to the biblical mandate that same gender relationships are morally unacceptable.

Recognizing the nature of her commentary, Breitbart reported:
"So what kind of “religious liberty” does Clinton and the Obama administration believe is acceptable? As conservative giant Ken Blackwell wrote this week in an article for The Hillpicked up by the Drudge Report, during his time in Latin America, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine became a zealous advocate of “liberation theology,” which is “a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.”

So theology that calls for government-run socialized healthcare or government redistribution of wealth is okay, but theology that adheres to millennia-old Christian teachings on human life, other social issues, and religious liberty are “deplorable,” so much so that those who hold such views are “irredeemable” in the eyes of a woman who wants to become the most powerful person in the world. That was why in 2015 she said in a speech that orthodox Christian views on these issues “have to be changed.[ARTICLE HERE]

It seems that Hillary has gone to great lengths to associate a Trump candidacy with Russia and even Vladimir Putin, while minimizing her acceptance of Marxism which is a solidly communist ideal and value. Even the Pope, in his zeal to enter the Presidential race, sold out the Catholics to the Marxist ideal and religious freedom value.

While Donald Trump, who was not in tune with religious issues and value arguments at the beginning of his campaign, adopts the Republican platform of religious freedom which not only includes religious right of worship but is also inclusive of carrying out religious values within the public square and in all that one does. Even though Donald has been victim of an impingement upon religious freedom and personal privacy, by saying that he would allow men to enter women's bathrooms in his Trump Tower, based on gender identity, rather than birth identity, his acceptance of such ideas appears to be a business decision rather a closely held view of religious freedoms. While Hillary's acceptance of limited and restricted religious freedoms, and no personal freedom (Marxism) when gender identity is a factor, is staunchly aligned with the DNC policy of accepting and promoting the LGBT agenda and even communism itself. In fact, advocates of the DNC's position consistently call traditional values discrimination and bigotry. Hillary's version of suspended religious freedom, is limited to religious worship, and not the bearing out of one values within the public square.  Hillary's views are clear, and encourage a rolling back of religious freedom, demanding change in every proposed religious freedom extending to healthcare, the workplace, employment, contraception, childbirth and other areas. Under Hillary's vision, a stand for religion is bigotry and discrimination. To teach values contrary to the state and what the state accepts as law or right, could be un-American and subject to penalty. This is called fascism and is the exact policy that Hillary embraces and has fought for for years. I strongly believe that the Hillary's version of Religious freedom is anything but American. Unfortunately, she is hardly subject to change in this area.

So the question is can ANY committed Christian vote FOR a Clinton Presidency knowing the implications of her views and how they will be played out in the executive branch of government. 

Abortion...Donald Trump has appeared to align himself with the Republican party line of anti- abortionist rhetoric, even to the point of promising a defunding Planned Parenthood which is the leading organization in the US providing abortion services or referrals for abortions to women under the guise of "women's health services". For the Black community abortion is an issue of special importance, as the Black community has disproportionately been target with abortion services, especially the Planned Parenthood organization, some say to the tune of aborting over 13 million children since 1972. In fact, abortion has become so popular that it is and has often been marketed as a contraceptive alternative especially to low income Blacks and minorities. On the contrary, Hillary has seemingly doubled-down on the funding of Planned Parenthood (as she believes that this is one of those religious views that must change) promising that a woman's right of choice overrides any right of the unborn. Her view is in step with the 1972 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that declared than an unborn child did not have 14th Amendment rights, and therefore no constitutional protections. It is really quite amazing that someone that claims to be a champion of the rights of women and those who are underserved, is in abject disregard that a fetus is a human and therefore deserving of a right to life. Nonetheless, Hillary's position is an extension of the DNC's position and President Obama, who also sought to expand abortion even late into the 3rd tri-mester of pregnancy even up until the point of partial birth, ( a procedure that Democrat President Bill Clinton endorsed as well) which allows a child to be killed as long as his/her head remains within the womb. In essence, babies have no rights, little value and at the end of the day it's all about dollars and funding. Now which position sounds more Presidential? 

The War On Terrorism...Hillary clearly believes that doing what we are doing now will defeat terrorists as long as we continue to employ and recruit Muslim regimes to secure their own countries and fight for their own freedom. The problem is that as this writing is being published, what we are doing now is not working. Look at Mosul for example...under the plan that the President outlined, ISIS was expanding in the Mid-East. What seemed to be a small, extremist group, nearly doubled in size and sophistication. The Mid-East required an adequate response. A response much better than what we had been given by the Obama administration and a State department led by Hillary. Therefore, and as a result we are currently sending more and more soldiers back to war to engage the terrorist enemy when President Obama had committed no American troops back in the military venue or theater.  Donald, on the other hand makes no bones about it...he has said that the military must be ramped up to a level that is able to unequivocally defeat ISIS and terrorists threats in a hands-down manner. In other words, the level of troops or resources to defeat ISIS, under a Trump regime, is not nor has ever been defined. If we think that we will be out of the business of war, under Trump or Clinton, that is an illusion.

Foreign Trade...One of the problems with the American economy is our weak or inept foreign trade deals. Many have called our current agreements a disaster, and if we look at them, we must be honest and question what the motivations were to get into some of these deals that restrict us, while expanding the interest of others. The empty factories and closed businesses could be the best argument that the deals were bad and devestating to the American economy. It is here that seemingly both political parties agree, but with differing opinions on how to bring about a fix. While we must remember that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to these deals, that it is the republican platform reaching out with the most radical approach to the solution...AMERICA FIRST!...While that chant may not resonate with all Democrats who worry about the world's response to such sentiment, it certainly resonates with the American public, both union and factory workers who were put out of business by agreements such as NAFTA. Trump has promised to scrap the trade agreements and impliment a system of tariffs, while Clinton, realizing the system is bad, seems to seek to renegotiate the agreements and penalize companies seeking to leave the country to take advantage of deals left open by the agreements. (Remember NAFTA was signed into law under Republican George Bush)

The Economy...One can hardly separate the economy from foreign trade but we will note that while both candidates promise that their plans will improve the economy, we are yet left with the same and similar ideas that have existed for years, both failing and succeeding to some degree. Though President Obama inherited a devastated economy, the national debt of the United States has nearly doubled since he has been in office. In response and as a fix to our ills, Hillary makes war on her own social class, (the wealthy) promising more taxes from the rich elite, to whom Donald promises tax cuts and a trickle-down effect from the elite to the rank and file, similar to Reagan's economic plan. Hillary's version of economic fairness is a throw-back of Bernie Sanders style socialism where the wealth of the wealthy is seized through complex law and requirements to fund the needs of the masses and in particularly the working poor. Teasers such as "free education" is highlighted as a benefit to the poor, with no or little regard to who is actually going to pay for it (because it is NOT free) The fundamental problem is that this whole approach assumes that the poor can never get wealth by any other means than taking it from the wealthy and that the wealthy should be penalized in some fashion for success and wealth even if it is inherited wealth. In the effort of the Democrat to speak against classism, they actually CREATE and promote classism and class dissent through their efforts and rhetoric. This is similar to what republicans did under Reagan with the implementation of stricter community policing and the so called "war on drugs" which was more tantamount to a war on classes of individuals more than the drugs themselves. 

The Supreme Court...While philosophies on the use and purpose of the Supreme Court is evidently and obviously different on both sides of this campaign, this is probably one of the most critical elements of the election. Many say that the next President may appoint up to 3 Justices over his/her term. Therefore, clear guidance and a theory and view of legal precedence is in order. Why? With the passing of Antonin Scalia, who was, by all accounts, a conservative Justice, the court is currently split evenly between alleged liberals (who supposedly favor democratic arguments) and conservatives (who supposedly favor republican ideals and values) What is certain is that Hillary believes that Supreme Court Justices should be able to legislate from the bench, creating law as opposed to merely examining the constitutionality of certain legislation and questions. Therefore, under Hillary's vision the Supreme Court there would be a law making body, responsible for telling all citizens what the law is after it has reviewed a case. Whereas under a Republican vision,  the Supreme Court is a body entrusted to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. These are two totally different  philosophical approaches to the bench and legislative law in America, and will have an effect on American jurisprudence and values for generations to come, especially due to the life-time appointments of the justices.  


Yes, there is enough fanfare for everyone. Emails, alleged sexual misconduct,potential jail time,  threat of suit...There is more than enough to choke a horse. However, for the next 4 years we will either be bound on a worse path of values reduction than what we have seen under an Obama Presidency or we will put the brakes on some issues in an attempt to reverse what many see as a moral decline and a reversion to ideals that will not build, but that will ultimately destroy us as a people. Certainly, neither candidate will destroy or build anything over night, but each one will have an impact that will have a long lasting effect upon the plight of our nation. 

While Trump's in your face style may be offensive to some, and others claim that he is a racist, one must ask if the moral setting that Americans find themselves in currently is worth going unchecked another 4 years.

Remember, it was a Clinton State Department that hailed proliferating the homosexual agenda all over the world when she left office. She was in part responsible not for gay rights, but for gay preference that we are witnessing across the country. It is Christians and biblical values that are being put to open shame. Christians are being told that they are bigots and that they are out of step with even being American and in some cases "patriotic" simply because they accept the values upon which our nation was founded.

It is at that juncture that personalities mean nothing...only TRUTH matters in the end. It is TRUTH that builds and TRUTH that strengthens. The LIES that we have been told this election cycle are sad. Both democratic and republican lies STINK...However, the truth is that we need a reversion to traditional moral values and this false sense of a "new morality" must be challenged. What we will find is that doing the right thing, the biblical thing, will always stand and come out on top, building a nation. 

Prov. 24:3-4 ~ 3-Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4-And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett and I approved this Jesus name! Amen!!!


Read more!

Monday, October 10, 2016